Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 931 (KAR)

S. Nataraj Sharma v. State of Karnataka

2016-12-06

BUDIHAL R.B., SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2016
ORDER : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. These writ petitions are filed assailing the order dated August 11, 2016, passed on IA Nos. 12 and 13, and order dated August 31, 2016, passed on LA No 14, both passed by the Justice H. S. Kempanna Commission of Enquiry, rejecting all these interlocutory applications filed by the writ petitioner. 2. IA No. 12 was an application filed under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 [for short, the said Act], read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to summon Sri. B. Boraiah, the then additional land acquisition officer, Bangalore Development Authority, to depose in connection with the re-commendatory orders and the spot inspection reports submitted by him. IA No. 13 was an application filed under Section 5 of the said Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to conduct a local/spot inspection of 16 villages comprised in the Arkavathi housing project of the government of Karnataka, by the Commission. IA No. 14 was an application filed under Section 4 of the said Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to summon the present Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, and the Hon'ble Leader of Opposition, Karnataka Legislative Assembly, to depose before the Commission in connection with the de-notification orders passed during the regime as Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, and also to speak about various violations committed by the government, its officers and others in respect of the lands situated in 16 villages of the Arkavathi housing project. 3. There were allegations in respect of the formation of the Arkavathi layout scheme, giving rise to the appointment of Justice H. S. Kempanna Commission of Enquiry in order to ascertain the truth of the matter. The terms of reference of the Commission are as under: (i) After issue of final notification under Section 19(1) of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, dated 23-02-2004, whether deletion/exclusion of lands by Bangalore Development Authority and de-notification of lands by the government to a total extent of 983.33 acres of lands are in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Appeal 2624-2625/2005, orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 4097/2010 and other relevant court orders pertaining to Arkavathi Layout? (II) Whether the various quasi-judicial orders passed by the court land acquisition officers authorised vide notification dated 04-06-2010 bearing No UDD 174 MNJ 2010 are legal and valid? (III) Whether the various resolutions dated 31-5-2006,03-09-2007, 15-02-2011 and dated 12-02-2013 passed by the Bangalore Development Authority to exclude from acquisition from the final notification after considering the objections raised by the landowners as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court & Hon'ble Supreme Court are legal and valid? (IV) Whether the approval by the government of re-modified Scheme of Arkavathi Layout under Section 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act dated 03-04-2014 and the final notification of the re-modified scheme under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Act, gazetted on 18-06-2014 are in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Supreme Court of India and other relevant court orders pertaining to Arkavathi layout? (v) Whether any undue favour has been shown to the landowners by the authorities while exercising their powers in relation to the terms of reference (i) to (IV) mentioned above? 4. When the enquiry is going on, the writ petitioner made the present interlocutory applications. The Commission rejected IA-12 on the ground that the terms of reference did not speak about fixing the culpability on any of the officers or persons in power, who were responsible for the alleged illegal exclusion of the lands from acquisition. 5. Our reading of the terms of reference is whether the exclusion of the lands to the extent of 983.33 acres is in accordance with law and the guidelines issued by this court? There was no point of reference to fix the culpability on any officers while executing the project Moreover, whether the said B. Boraiah had passed recommendatory orders in conformity with the court orders or not can be verified from the records themselves and there is no I need to summon the said officer. 6. The Commission, further, held that no I useful purpose would be served by conducting a spot inspection/investigation after lapse I of 13 years from the date of issue of preliminary notification. 7. We have carefully perused the application, being LA No. 14. We are at one with the Commission that there was nothing in the affidavit as to why the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are required to be summoned. 8. 7. We have carefully perused the application, being LA No. 14. We are at one with the Commission that there was nothing in the affidavit as to why the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are required to be summoned. 8. The enquiry is going on for a considerable period of time. Such interlocutory applications would only delay the enquiry proceedings. The writ petitioner cannot force the authorities to cite the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition as witnesses so that he can cross-examine them. This is a bad practice. Moreover, we are at loss to understand what was the necessity to call the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition? 9. We meticulously perused the application for such a prayer. We are absolutely in agreement with the view of the Commission that there was no whisper in the application as to how their presence was required to answer the terms of reference. A spot inspection/investigation after a distant period of 13 years will reveal nothing. The Commission, for this purpose, would peruse various records/documents. Several officers/officials deposed before the Commission. 10. We do not think that the interlocutory applications in question are filed with any bona fides and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Commission was right in rejecting all the three applications. 11. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs.