Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 645 (KAR)

Mangilal v. State Information Commissioner

2010-05-27

AJIT J.GUNJAL

body2010
Judgment :- Ajit J. Gunjal, J: The petitioner is questioning the initiation of proceedings under the Right to Information Act and also the order passed by the 1st respondent-State Information Commissioner. The petitioner is also questioning the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which is an offshoot of the directions issued by the 1st respondent – pursuant to its orders dated Annexures ‘B’ & ‘G’ 2. The matter arises in the following manner: The petitioner pursuant to various sale deeds had acquired as many as 10 sites of various extents. It appears an application is moved by one V. Bhaskar under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk seeking certain information in respect of these acquired lands. The information, which is sought is: (a) Copy of the Declarations filed in Form No.12 (including Annexures ‘A’ & ‘B’) of Rule No.28 of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 and Section 79-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. (b) Copy of the Enquiry Reports conducted by the Tahsildar to verify the Income particulars of the Buyer from the Income-Tax Authorities. (c) Copy of Reports sent by the Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and Sheristedar for change of Mutation in respect of the above land in the name of the buyer. (d) Name of Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector, Sheristedar and Tasildar who are responsible for Change of Mutation in respect of the above land in the name of the buyer. (e) Copy of Mutation Register Extract. (f) Certified copy of all File Noting, Office Notes, Reports, Orders available in the file relating to transfer of Khatha/ Mutation. 3. It appears this information was not furnished by the Public Information Officer, Office of the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk. Hence, the said application was placed before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner and all other concerned and the applicant was assisted by Counsel, so also the respondents before the State Information Commissioner. 3. It appears this information was not furnished by the Public Information Officer, Office of the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk. Hence, the said application was placed before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued notice to the petitioner and all other concerned and the applicant was assisted by Counsel, so also the respondents before the State Information Commissioner. The State Information Commissioner, pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2008 has directed the 3rd respondent to gather necessary information in respect of the acquisition of the land by the petitioner, including whether the land was granted in favour of the petitioner and the same is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act inasmuch as, as on 01.03.1974, whether the petitioner was an agriculturist and with reference to his income. The order further discloses that a finding is practically recorded indicating that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In the circumstances, the Commission directed the 2nd respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings and file a report within a period of 30 days. The matter thereafter was adjourned to 22.01.2009. The proceedings on 22.01.2009 would further disclose that notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had made an application on 15.05.2008, since the said information was not given, an explanation was sought as to the delay. The Commissioner further directed the 2nd respondent to report to him as to the progress on the initiation of proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 4. Pursuant to the directions issued by the State Information Commissioner, the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and has issued a notice, copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘F’, calling upon the petitioner to file his reply to why action should not be initiated under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act at the behest of the 1st respondent-Commissioner, on the premise that such a direction could not have been issued by the Commissioner inasmuch as it is outside the purview of the Act itself. 5. Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has two-fold submission to make. 5. Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has two-fold submission to make. He submits that the simple information, the Public Information Officer of the Office of Tahsildar was required to give was only in respect of the acquisition of lands by the petitioner. If the said information was available with the Public Information Officer, that could have been supplied, if not an endorsement is required to be issued. Indeed the Commission could not have transgressed its limits and directed the Revenue Authority to initiate proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act so as to ascertain whether the petitioner has violated any of the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. He further submits that the notice issued by the 2nd respondent, which stems from the directions of the 1st respondent is also one without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is not an independent application of mind by the 2nd respondent before issuing a notice. Indeed he hastens to add that the 2nd respondent does have the power to issue notice under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and call upon the petitioner to answer the queries whether there is any violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. But however, such an initiation must be suo motu and not on the basis of the direction issued by an authority, who is not competent to do so. 6. Mr. Narendra Prasad, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent supports issuance of notice as well as directions issued by the Commission. He submits with reference to Section 82 of the Act that if it comes to the knowledge of the Competent Authority that transactions are in violation of the Land Reforms Act and that such violation has come to the notice of the 2nd respondent on the directions of the 1st respondent – Commission, he is entitled to issue a notice. Hence, he submits that the direction issued by the 1st respondent as well as the notice issued by the 2nd respondent are well-within their jurisdiction. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Before adverting to the contentions urged, it is necessary for us to look into the provisions of the special enactment i.e., Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Before adverting to the contentions urged, it is necessary for us to look into the provisions of the special enactment i.e., Right to Information Act, 2005. 8. Indeed the object of the Right to Information Act is to provide for setting out the practical regime of Right to Information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. A perusal of the Act does not indicate that the powers of the State Commission or the Central Commission would stem from Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act would speak about the powers and functions of the Information Commission. It specifically speaks about the fact that the Commission is empowered to receive and inquire into a request from any applicant, if the Public Information Officer has not furnished the required information or where there is no response to a request for information or access to any information within the time limit specified under the Act, who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information and in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. A perusal of the provisions of Section 18 including Sub-Sections (2) and (3) of the Act does not give an indication that he is vested with the power or the jurisdiction to direct any other officer to initiate enquiry under any other enactment. 9. Indeed in the case on hand, a perusal of Annexures ‘B’ & ‘G’ dated 19.11.2008 and 22.01.2008 respectively would clearly disclose that the Commission has travelled beyond the jurisdiction and has directed the Revenue Authorities to initiate enquiry as to whether the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Indeed I am of the view that such a direction certainly could not have been issued inasmuch as the State Information Commission acts only in the capacity of an Appellate Authority inasmuch as if the Public Information Officer does not supply any information, the State Information Commission can certainly look into it and direct the Public Information Officer to supply the said information. A perusal of the application of the applicant discloses that he wants the information in respect of the declarations, which are filed by the petitioner under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and other related items. If the Public Information Officer is in Possession of the said information, he would certainly give it. If he is not in possession of the said information, certainly, an endorsement can be issued indicating that the said information cannot be furnished. The Commission is only required to see whether the endorsement issued by the public Information Officer is in confirmity with the Act and whether the information, which is sought has been deliberately withheld or is not furnished within the time specified under the Act, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, I am of the view that the 1st respondent has travelled beyond the powers, which are conferred on him by the Act. In fact if there is any violation of the provisions of the Act by the Public Information Officer, what are the penalties which can be imposed by the 1st respondent is also to be found in Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, which would relate to imposition of penalty. Such penalty can be imposed only if the information is denied mala fidely or knowingly giving incorrect information, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information, which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information. 10. This takes us to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Indeed Sections 79A and 79B have been brought on statute pursuant to Act 1/1974 with effect from 01.03.1974. Indeed it would deal with the restrictions on holding or transfer of agricultural lands. It would impose certain stringent conditions as to who can hold agricultural land inasmuch as he should basically be an agriculturist or developer of the land. Section 79B of the Act is in respect of prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons. Insofar as Section 82 of the Act, it is in respect of reporting of illegal transactions. It is to be noticed that it is within the powers of every Village Officer and every Officer of the Revenue, Registration and Land Records Departments to report to the prescribed authority, every transaction in respect of any land, which in its view is in violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. It is to be noticed that it is within the powers of every Village Officer and every Officer of the Revenue, Registration and Land Records Departments to report to the prescribed authority, every transaction in respect of any land, which in its view is in violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Indeed no such violation was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent. But however, the State Information Commission took it upon itself and presumed that there is a violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and directed the 2nd respondent to hold an enquiry. It is no doubt true that it is submitted that the Tahsildar i.e., the 3rd respondent has made a report. But however, once again, the said report is on the basis of a direction issued. Consequently, I am of the view that the notice issued by the 2nd respondent under the Lad Reforms Act is liable to be quashed and so also the proceedings before the 1st respondent. Hence, the following order: (a) Petition stands allowed. (b) The notice issued at Annexure ‘F’ under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act stands quashed. (c) The proceedings before the 1st respondent is confined only to the information, which is sought for by the applicant. (d) It is open for the respondents 2 and 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, if they find that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. Rule is issued and made absolute to the extent indicated above. 22. Mr. Nanrendra Prasad, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.