Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 843 (KAR)

MUNIRAJU M. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2021-09-03

S.C.SHARMA, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The captioned appeals are filed questioning the common order dtd. 15/3/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 9723/2020 c/w W.P.Nos.5008/2020 and 915/2020. W.A.No. 453/2021 is filed by the grantee, W.A.No. 394/2021 is filed by the State, W.A.No. 397/2021 is filed by the Tahsildar and W.A.No. 444/2021 is filed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. The subject matter of the appeal is agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 152/1 measuring 2 acres 31 guntas situated in Doddathoguru Village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said land was granted to one Kaveriga and after his death his legal heirs inherited the granted land. The legal heirs sold the land in question under registered sale deed dtd. 9/4/2001 in favour of one Karar Ahmed. The transferee got the land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose on 21/9/2001. The said Karar Ahmed sold 1 acre 30 guntas out of total extent measuring 2 acres 31 guntas in favour of one K.Boopathy on 27/7/2002. The remaining portion was sold in favour of M/s.Pathy Housing Private Limited represented by K.Boopathy on 21/5/2003. The said K.Boopathy applied for sanction of layout in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas and thereafter formed residential sites in the layout and sold 12 sites in favour of K.C.Varghese. These 12 sites measuring 14,880 sq.ft. were sold by K.C.Varghese in favour of M/s. Unidesign Builders and Developers Private limited who was petitioner in W.P.Nos.915/2020 and 5008/2020 and petitioner No. 4 in W.P.No. 9723/2020. 3. Shri Muniraju, appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 who is the legal heir of the original grantee having sold the lands along with other legal heirs in favour of one Karar Ahmed questioned the mutation by filing a Revision Petition before Deputy Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner who had directed to enter the name of the applicant as well as K.Boopathy who had acquired valid right and title under registered sale deed. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner which was questioned before this Court in W.P.No. 56193/2017. This Court allowed the writ petition by order dtd. 3/4/2019 and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner with a specific direction to delete the name of Shri Muniraju i.e., appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021. The said order was questioned by the present appellant in writ appeal which was also dismissed on 18/12/2019. 4. This Court allowed the writ petition by order dtd. 3/4/2019 and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner with a specific direction to delete the name of Shri Muniraju i.e., appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021. The said order was questioned by the present appellant in writ appeal which was also dismissed on 18/12/2019. 4. The present appellant having suffered an order at the hands of this Court approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi. The National Commission recommended the Government to ensure resumption and restoration of the granted land comprised in Sy.No. 152/6 (earlier part of Sy.No. 152/1). The present appellant by creating a fresh cause of action on the basis of the recommendation by the National Commission, got initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'). The present appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021, however, for reasons best known to him did not implead M/s. Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which had acquired valid and right and title, though M/s. Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., was a party before the National Commission. 5. The respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner takes up an enquiry and passes an order under Sec. 4(2) of the PTCL Act ordering for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of legal heirs of the grantee. The said order is passed by respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner on 18/2/2020 and on 26/2/2020 the building belonging to the respondents/transferees were demolished. The subsequent purchasers assailing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering for resumption approached the learned Single Judge by filing writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter exhaustively and has recorded a categorical finding that the provisions of the PTCL Act have been abused by the legal heirs of the grantee. The learned Single Judge has also come to conclusion that the authorities more particularly the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have abused their official powers and have exceeded their jurisdiction in demolishing the structures in the land cited supra. 6. Questioning this common order, the grantee has preferred an appeal in W.A.No. 453/2021. The respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner has preferred W.A.No. 444/2021 questioning the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 24 and 28 of the order under challenge. The Tahsildar has also questioned the common order in W.A.No. 397/2021. 6. Questioning this common order, the grantee has preferred an appeal in W.A.No. 453/2021. The respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner has preferred W.A.No. 444/2021 questioning the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 24 and 28 of the order under challenge. The Tahsildar has also questioned the common order in W.A.No. 397/2021. 7. On 18/8/2021, the appellant-Shri Muniraju has appeared in person and made a prayer for listing of the matter on 23/8/2021 and at his request the matter was adjourned to 23/8/2021 and it was also made clear that no further adjournment will be granted in the matter. On 23/8/2021, Shri G.R.Venkatesh Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 submitted to the Court that his client has taken back the papers and intends to engage some other counsel. The present appellant has engaged a counsel in connected writ appeals. Shri Siddarth Babu Rao, learned counsel submits to this Court that he is instructed to argue in W.A.No. 397/2021 where grantee is arrayed as a respondent but he has no instruction to appear in W.A.No. 453/2021 which is an appeal filed by the grantee questioning the remand order passed by learned Single Judge. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant (Assistant Commissioner) in W.A.444/2021 would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that several remarks made by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 28 of the impugned order are without any basis and therefore, the said remarks were unwarranted and are beyond the scope of writ petition. He would submit to this Court that the said remarks are uncalled for and are liable to be expunged from the impugned order. 9. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Mishra vs. Ramawati and Others, (2019) 8 Laws (SC) 137 and also in the case of K.P. Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 1031 . The grievance of the appellant before this Court is that the remarks made against the appellant herein in the impugned order virtually meant that appellant stood condemned without affording an opportunity of hearing. He would also submit to this Court that having arrived at a conclusion that remedy for compensation has to be worked out before the competent Civil Court, the learned Single Judge erred in imposing cost of Rs.10,000.00. He would also submit to this Court that having arrived at a conclusion that remedy for compensation has to be worked out before the competent Civil Court, the learned Single Judge erred in imposing cost of Rs.10,000.00. He would further contend that the transferees have an efficacious remedy of an appeal under Sec. 5-A of the PTCL Act and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Tahsildar in W.A.No. 397/2021 would submit to this Court that the appellant (Tahsildar) has only complied with the direction issued by the Assistant Commissioner vide communication dtd. 19/2/2020 and therefore, he would submit to this Court that no malafides can be attributed towards the Tahsildar. He would submit to this Court that the appellant has simply followed the directions issued by the superiors and it is only in compliance of communication issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant has acted in good faith and therefore, the order imposing penalty and directing disciplinary proceedings against the appellant is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside at the hands of this Court. 11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We have perused the entire records and also the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. The following points would arise for our consideration: "(1) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order dtd. 18/2/2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering for resumption and restoration of land? (2) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in entertaining the writ petition though the petitioners had a remedy of an appeal under Sec. 5-A of the PTCL Act? (3) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in regard to the highhandedness of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar is sustainable?" Re: Point Nos.1 and 2: 12. The appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 is seeking resumption and restoration of land. The land was admittedly granted to one Kaveriga and after his death the legal heirs who inherited the property got the khata transferred in their names. The legal heirs sold the land in question under registered sale deed dtd. The appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 is seeking resumption and restoration of land. The land was admittedly granted to one Kaveriga and after his death the legal heirs who inherited the property got the khata transferred in their names. The legal heirs sold the land in question under registered sale deed dtd. 9/4/2001 in favour of Karar Ahmed who got the land converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purpose and thereafter sold 1 acre 30 guntas out of 2 acres 31 guntas in favour of one K.Boopathy on 27/7/2002. The remaining extent was also sold in favour of M/s. Pathy Housing Pvt. Ltd., represented by K.Boopathy on 21/5/2003. The said purchaser i.e., K.Boopathy formed a layout in 1 acre 30 guntas and sold 12 sites in favour of one K.C.Varghese who in turn sold in favour of M/s. Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., i.e., respondent No. 11 in the W.A.No. 453/2021. The flow of title narrated above is not in dispute. 13. The appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 having suffered an order arising out of mutation proceedings in W.P.No. 56193/2017, preferred a writ appeal which was also dismissed on 18/12/2019. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 56193/2017 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and a specific direction was given to delete the name of Shri Muniraju i.e., the appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 and a further direction was also given to reflect the formation of residential sites and give distinct numbers to the sites formed therein. From these materials, it is clearly evident that the legal heirs of the original grantee namely appellant herein lost litigation in mutation proceedings. Having suffered an order in W.P.No. 56193/2017 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in a writ appeal, the appellant with an oblique motive approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the appellant has arrayed respondent No. 11 (M/s.Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.) as a party to the said proceedings. The National Commission recommended the Government to ensure resumption and restoration of granted land comprising of Sy.No. 152/6 in favour of Shri M.Muniraju i.e., the appellant herein. 14. Basing recommendation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes as a cause of action, the appellant herein approached the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner and the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner initiates proceedings under the provisions of Ss. 14. Basing recommendation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes as a cause of action, the appellant herein approached the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner and the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner initiates proceedings under the provisions of Ss. 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. At this juncture, we would find a very disturbing fact. The appellant who was well aware as to who was the rightful owner of the land in question, however, deliberately does not implead the respondent No. 11 to the resumption proceedings. The respondent No. 3- Assistant Commissioner also does not verify the records before taking up the proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner has passed an order under the provisions of Ss. 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act and has declared the sale deeds in favor of the vendors of respondent No. 11 as null and void. The respondent No. 3- Assistant Commissioner does not stop here. In his operative portion, he declares that all subsequent sale transactions are also null and void. It would be useful for us to refer to the operative portion of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which reads as under: "The petition is hereby allowed. The sale deed dtd. 9/4/2001 document No. 2008/2001-02 in favour of 2nd respondent and Sale Deed dtd. 27/7/2002 document No. BNG (U) BLR (S) 5168/2002-03 in favour of 1st respondent both are registered in the office of the Sub-Reigster, Bengaluru South Taluk, and all subsequent sale transactions in respect of the land bearing old Sy.No. 152/01, new No. 152/6 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas, situated at Dodda Togur Village, Begur Hobli, and Bangalore South Taluk, are declared as null and void. And further it is ordered U/s 5(1) (a) and (b) of the Act to resume the possession of the said land to the Government free from all encumbrances and restore the same in favour of original grantee or his legal heirs. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, shall take necessary action and make necessary entries in the revenue records as per rules." 15. If the operative portion of the order passed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner is examined, it is quite evident that even the sale deed secured by respondent No. 11 from previous vendors is declared as null and void. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, shall take necessary action and make necessary entries in the revenue records as per rules." 15. If the operative portion of the order passed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner is examined, it is quite evident that even the sale deed secured by respondent No. 11 from previous vendors is declared as null and void. This prima facie establishes that the sale deeds in favour of respondent No. 11 are also declared as null and void and this order is passed behind the back of respondent No. 11 without affording any opportunity. 16. Natural justice is an expression of English common law and involves a procedural requirement of fairness. The principles of natural justice are not embodied rules and are also not codified. But the same constitutes a necessary ingredient and requisite to ascertain whether due process is followed. Essentially, natural justice requires that a person receives a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect the party. The three main requirements of natural justice that must be made in every case are: adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias. 17. Therefore, if the order passed by respondent No. 3- Assistant Commissioner is examined in the light of the Doctrine of Natural Justice, this Court would find that the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner has annulled the registered sale deed, on the basis of which respondent No. 11 has acquired valid right and title and has constructed residential buildings by investing huge amounts. Therefore, the malafides on the part of the original grantee in not deliberately impleading respondent No. 11 to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner is apparent and tangible. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has examined these aspects and has rightly set aside the order and the matter is remitted back to hold fresh enquiry. The claim of legal heirs of the original grantee has to be also examined in the light of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Munnaiah and Others vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and Others W.P.No. 60483 of 2016 dtd:5/7/2021 , wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that once granted land is converted and is permitted to be used for non-agricultural purposes, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the question of alternative remedy. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. The learned Single Judge having considered the rival contentions has dealt with the matter in detail. The learned Single Judge has considered the controversy between the parties in two folds. Firstly, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the manner in which the legal heirs have initiated proceedings. The legal heirs of the grantee having suffered an order in mutation proceedings, approached the National Commission and to the said proceedings, the petitioner in W.P.No. 56193/2017 namely M/s. Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., is a party to the proceedings. Placing reliance on the recommendation of the National Commission, the appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021 initiated proceedings without impleading the subsequent purchaser i.e., M/s. Unidesign. The Assistant Commissioner without verifying the records hurriedly passes an order of resumption and restoration of land in favour of legal heirs of the grantee. This order is passed without notifying M/s. Unidesign. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that though the impugned order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 18/2/2020 and an application was filed seeking certified copy on 27/2/2020, however, the same was issued on 11/3/2020. Having examined all these disturbing facts, the learned Single Judge by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner. 19. Having examined all these disturbing facts, the learned Single Judge by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner. 19. Though a principal objection was raised before the learned Single Judge in regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there is efficacious remedy of an appeal, the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 , Harbanslal Sahnia and Another vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 107 , M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88 and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society, Jaipur and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 427 was of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the orders impugned since the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order in gross violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering for resumption and consequently restoring the land in favor of the legal heirs of grantee is palpably erroneous and the same is not sustainable. The material on record clearly indicates that the subsequent transferee i.e., M/s.Unidesign was deliberately not arrayed as a party in the proceedings initiated under Ss. 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. Alternative remedy has been consistently held by the Apex Court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies. Despite existence of alternative remedy, a writ Court can entertain a writ petition, i) where the Court or Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction; ii) petition is for enforcement of fundamental rights; and iii) there has been violation of principles of natural justice. 20. In the present case on hand, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice as there is a deliberate attempt in securing an order for resumption and restoration of a granted land behind the back of the transferee. The Apex Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and Others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 has held that non-compliance with principles of natural justice by itself causes prejudice. The Apex Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and Others vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 has held that non-compliance with principles of natural justice by itself causes prejudice. Similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 , wherein the Apex Court referring to the principles laid down in Ridge vs. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40 held that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other 'de facto' prejudice needed to be proved. 21. We have meticulously examined the conduct of the legal heir of the grantee and also the authorities. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to conclusion that the alternate remedy does not constitute a bar and has rightly remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative. Re: Point No. 3: 22. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the action of the Assistant Commissioner (appellant in W.A.No. 444/2021) and the Tahsildar (appellant in W.A.No. 397/2021). The learned Single Judge has given anxious consideration to the records and has come to conclusion that Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have made a consorted effort, abused their office and by violating all procedures have highhandedly dispossessed the transferees and have also illegally demolished the structures and buildings which were in possession of rightful owners or tenants. The learned Single Judge has condemned the highhandedness of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar. There is a specific observation by the learned Single Judge at para 24 that the Assistant Commissioner and the Tashildar though have engaged counsels were unable to meet the allegations made against them. 23. The Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar have also preferred independent appeals. The proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner clearly demonstrates the malafides and bias and this has been meticulously examined by the learned Single Judge. If the original grantee has not filed an application pursuant to National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending for resumption and if there is no reference to the communication dtd. The proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner clearly demonstrates the malafides and bias and this has been meticulously examined by the learned Single Judge. If the original grantee has not filed an application pursuant to National Commission for Scheduled Castes recommending for resumption and if there is no reference to the communication dtd. 11/11/2019 issued by the National Commission to the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Land Revenue, Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District, then we are in total agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the Assistant Commissioner has initiated proceedings at the behest of the legal heirs of the original grantee i.e., the appellant in W.A.No. 453/2021. The learned Single Judge was justified in lamenting the conduct of the respondent No. 3-Assistant Commissioner who has issued notice only to Boopathy and Karar Ahmed. It would be relevant to refer to the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 18 which reads as under: "18. The diabolic conspiracy is further exhibited by the swiftness with which the respondents have proceeded. Final order is passed on 18/2/2020, declaring that the sale transaction dtd. 9/4/2001, by the legal heirs of Sri.Kaveriga in favour Sri.Karar Ahmed and the sale transaction dtd. 27/7/2002 by Sri.Karar Ahmed in favour of Sri.K.Bhoopathy are null and void. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 915/2020, calling in question the orders/recommendation of the National Commission. The 8th respondent herein had filed a Caveat and he was aware of the interim order dtd. 22/1/2020, passed by this Court, staying the proceedings and directions given by the National Commission. Nevertheless, the 8th respondent has succeeded in securing an illegal order at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner. What is more intriguing is that the impugned order was passed on 18/2/2020 and on 26/2/2020 the buildings belonging to the petitioners were demolished, post haste." 24. If the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are examined, we would find that the original grantee in collusion with respondent Nos.3 and 4 has secured an order for restoration of the granted land and the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have demolished the residential buildings without affording any opportunity. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the procedure that is required to be followed once a resumption order is passed by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the procedure that is required to be followed once a resumption order is passed by the competent authority. At paragraph 19, the learned Single Judge has examined Rule 3(6) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Rules, 1979. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the provisions of Sec. 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and also further course of action under Sec. 5 of the PTCL Act. Having meticulously examined the entire records and having gone through the provisions, the learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the procedure prescribed under Sec. 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is not followed before evicting the persons in possession of commercial/residential buildings. Para 18 of the judgment would also reflect the malafides on the part of the Assistant Commissioner who ordered for resumption and restoration of the granted land on 18/2/2020. The respondent No. 3- Assistant Commissioner does not furnish the order copy immediately though it was applied on 27/2/2020. The certified copy is issued on 11/3/2020 but the buildings are demolished on 26/2/2020. These disturbing facts in fact speak loudly to what extent the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have colluded with the legal heir of the grantee at whose instance the resumption proceedings were initiated under the provisions of PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner has denied the issuance of certified copy and therefore, virtually prevented the transferee in approaching competent court from seeking appropriate orders. Therefore, the observations made by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 28 are justified. 25. We are of the view that in fact the learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view while imposing cost of Rs.10,000.00 on the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar. It is because of these officers, the residential houses owned by the rightful owners are demolished highhandedly. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order for restoration and resumption on 18/2/2020 and on 26/2/2020, the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have demolished the residential buildings. This highhanded action on the part of the authorities has caused irreparable loss and hardship to the rightful owners. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order for restoration and resumption on 18/2/2020 and on 26/2/2020, the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar have demolished the residential buildings. This highhanded action on the part of the authorities has caused irreparable loss and hardship to the rightful owners. In the sphere of valuable property rights, the State, its instrumentality, public authorities or those whose acts bear insignia of public element are enjoined to act in a manner prescribed under the statues and rules i.e., the authorities are required to act in a fair, just and equitable manner after taking objectively all relevant options into consideration and in a manner that is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose for public good and in general public interest. The authorities cannot take any irrelevant or irrational factors into consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 in paragraph 10 has held that every action of executive Government must be informed with reason and must be free from arbitrariness. Paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows: "10.................It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege." 26. If the actions of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar are put to test in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, we would find that the authorities have misused their office for extraneous considerations and the learned Single Judge has rightly dealt with the matter. Therefore, the grounds urged by the appellant-Tahsildar in W.A.No. 397/2021 and the appellant-Assistant Commissioner in W.A.No. 444/2021 would not displace the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost and ordering for enquiry against the authorities. Accordingly, point No. 3 is answered in the affirmative. 27. Accordingly, point No. 3 is answered in the affirmative. 27. If these significant details are taken into consideration, this Court would find that the conduct of the appellant-Shri Muniraju in W.A.No. 453/2021 is unfair and the records also demonstrate that he has abused the process of law. 28. For the reasons stated supra, the writ appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.