Judgment :- 1. Petitioners are eight in number. While the first petitioner by name A Rajanna s/o late M Anjanappa, aged about 70 years, residing at No 1973, Karnakadasa Road, Veerabhadranapalya, Doddaballapur town, Doddaballapur -561 203, Bangalore rural district, the petitioners 2 to 5 are sons of first petitioner and have residence at the same address as of their father. 2. On behalf of the five petitioners, the second petitioner, on his own and on behalf of the other petitioners as general power of attorney holder, has approached this court seeking for the following relief: MAIN PRAYER a. to issue a Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Notice, dated: 12.03.2010, issued by the Respondents Nos. 02 and 03 in No. BANGALORE/SLAO/3378/2009-2010 as per “ANNEXURE – P” b. to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case INTERIM PRAYER To pass an interim order of stay, staying the operation, effect and implementation of the impugned Notice, dated: 12.03.2010 bearing No. BANGALORE/SLAO/3378/2009-2010 at “ANNEXURE – P” 3. Under the impugned notice at Annexure-P dated 12-3-2010, issued by the second respondent, the board has called upon the second petitioner R Devendra to refund the amount of Rs.1,24,00,000, which had been collected by him from the respondent-board by way of compensation in respect of acquisition of land to an extent of 4 acres in Sy No 74/304, situated at Bandikodigehalli village, Jala hobli, Bangalore north taluk, for the reason that in respect of the subject land, there was a civil suit pending before the court of civil judge [senior division], Devenahalli in OS No 1259 of 2005 and though there was some interim order of stay passed by that court in the suit, staying the disbursement of compensation amount or restraining the petitioners from receiving the amount etc., the second petitioner, suppressing this fact, has wrongly claimed and received the entire compensation amount of Rs.1,2400,000 and therefore is bound to return the amount with interest within three days from the date of receipt of notice, falling which necessary action will be taken in accordance with law etc. It is this notice which is sought to be quashed in the writ petition. 4. It is this notice which is sought to be quashed in the writ petition. 4. Writ petition has been presented in a haphazard and defective manner by the learned counsel namely M/s Narasimha Raju and Chokka Reddy, Advocates, on behalf of the petitioners and have filed vakalath for them in this writ petition. 5. Writ petition was presented by the counsel in the registry on 21-4-2010 and as the petition contained several defects even for proper presentation, the scrutiny branch of the registry had noticed the following five defects: 1. Oath Commissioner’s seal to be filed & attested by advocate as true copy in all Annexures as per rule 6 of WP rules. 2. Age proof of petitioner-1 to be filed. 3. Typed copy of Annexure-B to be filed a per rule 2 of chapter XII of HC rules. 4. Page Nos. at index left blank. 5. Typed copies of Annexures to be marked. 6. The defects having been notified and even after expiry of six weeks from the date of such notification in the registry, the advocates for the petitioners having not made the petition presentable in accordance with the rules and procedure, the matter was listed before this court for orders regarding non-compliance with the office objections as on 27-7-2010. On that day, a learned judge of this court has granted a week’s time for doing needful. With the advocate for the petitioner not complying thereafter also, the matter was again listed on 12-8-2020 and it is not known whether the counsel appearing for the petitioners was present before the court or not, nevertheless, this court granted two more week’s time for compliance of office objections. The matter was again listed before the court, as defects blissfully remained in tact, on 6-9-2010 and yet again this court granted a further week’s time as a last chance for compliance of office objections. The matter was again listed before the court on 23-9-2010 and in the meanwhile there being only inaction on the part of learned counsel for the petitioners in not rectifying the defects, this court on 23-9-2010 noticed that even on that date there was no representation, as no counsel appeared before the court though the matter was called twice during the course of the day, directed the matter be listed on 27-9-2010. On 27-9-2010 also, the defects have not been rectified and nevertheless, this court granted two more weeks’ time to comply with the office objections. 7. It is in this background, the matter is yet against listed before this court today with the registry indicating the non-compliance with office objections, the matter is listed for the fifth time. 8. When the writ petition was called in the morning session, there was no representation. It was passed over and it is again called in the afternoon session. Still there is no representation. In such a situation, the registry has been directed to contact the learned counsel for the petitioners who have filed power to apprise them even orally of the listing of the matter before the court and even to tell them that the case is listed over telephone number of the advocate if available anywhere in the writ petition papers. 9. The name seal of the advocates of the petitioners with their address at Chamber No 4, 2nd Floor, Amar Tower, 1st Cross, 1st Main, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560 009 also indicates the telephone number to be 41242950. Though the registry tried to get in touch with the advocate over this telephone number, the court officer informs that the registry was not successful in contacting the counsel for the reason that the response from the other side was ‘this number does not exist”. 10. Be that as it may, the manner in which the advocates present the writ petition on behalf of their clients and following up the matter before the court leaves much to be desired and it is nothing short of gross dereliction of duty apart from betraying incompetence of a high degree! 11. This court can take judicial notice of the efforts on the part of the bar council of India to ensure that a degree of professional competence is maintained in the legal profession by several experiments and the latest it appears, is that an advocate who should enroll his/her name for practicing legal profession, is nevertheless required to pass through a test that the bar council proposes to hold, which can be described as an entrance test for legal profession and it is only after the law graduate is successful in such test, he/she is permitted to practice the profession of law. 12. 12. While such an effort on the part of bar council is appreciated and is a much needed one, it cannot be just to test and level the proficiency at the entry level, but it is also the duty of the bar councils both at the central and state level being saddled with the primary responsibility of maintaining professional standards should ensure that the proficiency of the members in the bar who have entered without the entry level test, are also persons who have the requisite skills to ensure that they acquire the same within some timeframe if they are lacking and if some cannot raise up to the requisite level of professional competence to weed out such incompetent/irresponsible persons from legal profession. The responsibility squarely lies on the State Bar Councils. 13. As of now, both incompetent and irresponsible lawyers galore in legal profession and area black-spot on the legal profession. 14. It is very necessary, that bar councils, both at the central and state levels, take necessary steps to ensure elimination of incompetent and irresponsible lawyers by putting in place a system which can evaluate their professional skills at periodic intervals and retain only those who serve the profession well and to ease out those who do not. Though incompetent and irresponsible lawyers are a menace to the society, but are definitely go to the great dismay, disadvantage and agony of the litigant public. The entire legal system and the judicial system is made to sub-serve the needs of the people in the society and unless the system responds to the needs of the affected persons, protects the affected persons by ensuring that they are provided with remedy and relief in accordance with law and is extended to them, the purpose of having a judicial system, courts, legal profession, judges manning the courts, are all defeated and becomes a mirage to the affected and aggrieved litigant public. 15. 15. In the absence of any responsible action or conduct on the part of the advocates who presented this petition before this court on behalf of the petitioners, if no assistance is forthcoming either for rectification of defects or for apprising this court the merits of the matter, with no choice left and to avoid further waste of court time, which is a common time available to all needy litigants of the state, I am compelled to peruse the contents of the petition, to understand and appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 16. To the writ petition, the following persona are arrayed as respondents: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPID BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDINGS DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE -560 001 2. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB) NO.3/2, 1ST CROSS, 3RD FLOOR THIMMAIAHTOWER, GANDHINAGAR OPP. TO KAMAT YATRINIVAS BANGALORE– 560 009 3. SMT SUSHEELA @ SUSHEELAMMA D/O SHARADAMMA AGE: MAJOR R/AT C/O K RAJANNA NO.11, “VENKATESHWARA NILAYA” 10TH CROSS, NEAR MANJUNATHA TENT SANJEEVENI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA BANGALORE– 560 072 4. SRI SRINIVASA S/O SHARADAMMA AND SRI P SHAMNANA AGE: MAJOR R/AT C/O K RAJANNA NO.11. “VENKATESHWARA NILAYA” 10TH CROSS, NEAR MANJUNATHA TENT SANJEEVENI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA BANGALORE– 560 072 5. SMT SHARADAMMA W/O V RAVICHANDRA AGE: MAJOR R/AT C/O RAVICHANDRA NO.222, 1ST CROSS MANJUNATHA EXTENSION NAGASETTIHALLI BANGALORE– 560 094 6. SMT KALYANA KUMARI W/O SUDHAKAR, AGE: MAJOR R/AT C/O KANTEERAVA NAGARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE 7. SRI B N DEVARAJU S/O LATE NAGAPPA SHETTI AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.327, 1ST BLOCK, R T NAGAR BANGALORE– 560 032. 17. While the contents of para-5 of the petition make a reference to 8th respondent, said to be aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, only seven persons have been shown as respondents in the cause title, which has escaped even the attention of the registry. 18. 17. While the contents of para-5 of the petition make a reference to 8th respondent, said to be aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner had preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, only seven persons have been shown as respondents in the cause title, which has escaped even the attention of the registry. 18. Be that as it may, the sum and substance of the petition averments is that there were certain proceedings between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 7 regarding the entries figuring in the revenue records and the proceedings before the land acquisition officer in the wake of the respondents 3 to 7 also, it appears, have put forth a claim for receiving compensation based on the revenue entries/records at some point of time in their names also and the OS No 1259 of 2005, is said to be a suit filed by the sisters of the petitioners for petition and separate possession against the petitioners on the file of Civil Court (Sr. Dn), Bangalore rural district, now transferred to Civil Court (Sr. Dn), Devenahalli and numbered as 1461 of 2006, but KIADB is not a party to the said suit nor the plaintiffs in the suit had intimated the acquiring authority about the pendency of the civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 7 etc. 19. Dn), Bangalore rural district, now transferred to Civil Court (Sr. Dn), Devenahalli and numbered as 1461 of 2006, but KIADB is not a party to the said suit nor the plaintiffs in the suit had intimated the acquiring authority about the pendency of the civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 7 etc. 19. The writ petition, questioning the legality of the show cause notice calling upon the petitioners to redeposit the compensation amount Rs.1,24,00,000, which has already been received by the second petitioner, is on the premise that Annexure-O is not a notice but an order itself and that itself is illegal, erroneous and improper; that the amount in question has been disbursed by the special land acquisition officer only after being satisfied with the entitlement of second petitioner vis-à-vis documents and other evidence placed by the petitioners before the officer; that one the amount was disbursed after being duly satisfied by the special land acquisition officer, the officer has no power or authority to issue a notice as per Annexure-P; that the notice is bad in law; that the very issue of notice is a grave error committed by the respondent-officer as against the petitioners and more so calling upon them to redeposit the amount with interest within three days; that it is a mala fide notice issued at the behest and influence of the respondents 3 to 7; that the respondents 3 to 7 had not raised any objections before the special land acquisition officer at the time of disbursement of amount in favour of the second petitioner and therefore while the notice is to be quashed, the notice is bad for want of authority and jurisdiction on the part of second respondent. 20. The threat held out in the notice to resort to recovery proceedings if the amount is not redeposited with interest in three days is sought to be urged as a ground for grant of interim relief to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned notice. 21. I have bestowed my attention to the petition pleadings and looked into the material placed before the court along with the petition. 22. 21. I have bestowed my attention to the petition pleadings and looked into the material placed before the court along with the petition. 22. It is an admitted fact that there are disputes pending before the civil court between the petitioners and their sisters and kith and kin – respondents 3 to 7 to the writ petition – on the premise that the subject property is part of joint family properties and is required to be shared amongst all members of the family etc. 23. In this state of affairs, it was the bounden duty of the petitioners to have apprised the special land acquisition officer about the pendency of civil suit and suppressing this fact if the second petitioner alone has received the entire compensation, it is nothing short of committing a fraud on the other members of the family, who are entitled to share the compensation amount as per their entitlement in the family properties. The show cause notice calling upon the petitioners, particularly the second petitioner to redeposit the amount with interest is valid and justifiable and in fact warranted in law and there is nothing wrong or illegal in issuing such a notice to the petitioners. 24. It is more often than not, overreaching litigants take advantage of the gullible manner of functioning by the authorities, particularly the revenue authorities functioning under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, who wield vast powers and have the prerogative or jurisdiction to administer the state largesse viz., revenue lands belonging to the state by making grants just like the erstwhile kings and nawabs dolling imams to favourable ones. The Act is also a legacy of colonial past and contains various provisions which ill-fits into the scheme of the democratic republic, particularly in the matter of administering the state largesse. It gives scope for considerable mal-practices and is a fertile breeding ground for corruption. It is legendary that the revenue officials who occupy the posts starting from village accountant right up to the level of secretaries are all susceptible and are corrupt officials, though it is not as if all are the same in this department, but it is only few competent and upright officials who keep the show going, but incompetent and corrupt officials make merry dolling out favours, granting such largesse to their whims and fancies to the utmost detriment of the public interest and the society. 25. Special land acquisition officers disbursing huge amounts running to more than a crore of rupees in favour of any one person without even verifying the revenue records and entries when names of several persons are mentioned therein, in itself smacks of possible nepotism and lends credence to some cornering the compensation amount with the complicity of the land acquisition officer at the cost of others entitled to receive a share in the compensation. It is, therefore, while this writ petition has to be necessarily deposed of as devoid of merit, the matter requires further examination about the conduct of such special land acquisition officers attached to the KIADB, who are statutory functionaries to enquire into manner of functioning of such special land acquisition officers of the board, particularly as this court can take judicial notice of various scandals that are surfacing time and again and information being available to the general public and the media doing a laudable job of ensuring awareness being spread amongst general public and litigant public. Such corrupt, incompetent officials cannot be allowed to continue to function to the detriment of the people and the society and are nothing short of a menace to the society. It is, therefore, the Registrar General of this court is directed to place a copy of this order before the Karnataka Lok Ayukta for further enquiry into the manner of disbursal of compensation amount by the special land acquisition officers in favour of persons who claim to be owners of lands acquired by the board. If the Lok Ayukta should find any material which can indicate some remiss or positive favourtism on the part of the special land acquisition officer in favour of any of the petitioners or otherwise, action to be taken to the logical end not only for launching prosecution on the criminal side, but also by ensuring departmental enquiry against the erring officials. 26. The Registrar General is also directed to forward a copy of this order to the Karnataka Bar Council for taking necessary action at its end, as not only incompetent but also about the irresponsible manner of conducting this proceedings, on the part of the advocates who presented this petition on behalf of the petitioners, is writ large on the fact of the proceedings, for taking further action at its end. 27. 27. It is also open to the petitioners to proceed against the irresponsible lawyers, if they are suffering any monetary loss due to any incompetence or irresponsible act on the part of their lawyers, by taking them before any forum a permitted in law for seeking compensation, if they are able to make out such a case before the chosen forum. 28. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is dismissed.