HEMANTHKUMAR v. THE LOKAYUKTA

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R2; SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, CGSC FOR R3; SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10735 WP No. 111246 of 2015 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 TO APPOINT THE INVESTIGATION AGENCY OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT I.E. RESPONDENT NO.4, AS PER UNDER SECTION 15(3)(1)(a)(aa) OF THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984 IN Comp/LOk/BGM/2555/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition has been filed seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent – Lokayukta to appoint an Investigating Agency in terms of Section 15(3)(1)(a)(aa) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’). Petitioner has also sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to appoint an investigating agency of the Central Government.

It is the case of the petitioner that complaint was made to the Lokayukta in Form No.1, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. Perusal of the same at Column No.3 would reveal that the petitioner has asserted that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10735 WP No. 111246 of 2015 HC-KAR once the tenancy rights had been rejected as regards lands in 178 villages of Hunagunda Taluk, no action has been taken by the State to grant the same to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other backward classes in terms of the mandate of law. It is further submitted that in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, out of the lands which are not allotted, 75% of such lands is to be reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and is to be distributed amongst such persons. It is specifically asserted that there is lapse on the part of the officials concerned for non-grant of lands to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner has also asserted that in village of Havaragi, 738 acres of land belong to one Bala Saheb Kenchanagouda Saradesai and such holding is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is further submitted that such excess lands have to be forfeited to the State. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10735 WP No. 111246 of 2015 HC-KAR

It is the case of the petitioner that the Lokayukta has procrastinated in the matter and not taken any action and accordingly, the present petition has been filed seeking for appropriate direction to the Lokayuktha to take action under Section 15(3)(1)(a)(aa) of the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta would submit that the complaint made to the Lokayukta by the petitioner came to be closed by an endorsement dated 19.02.2018. Copy of such endorsement is placed on record.

Perused the scrutiny note. It is noticed that the complaint of the petitioner has been closed while noticing that the complainant was not present before the Authority. It further to be noticed that along with endorsement, further scrutiny note of the Lokayukta office has been placed on record. A perusal of the same, particularly Para 22 of the said note, would reveal the stand of the Lokayukta. Para 22 would reveal that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10735 WP No. 111246 of 2015 HC-KAR Lokayukta has taken note that the question of distribution of land is only pursuant to the application for land grant.

It must be noticed that the relief sought for is for the Lokayukta to appoint an investigating agency as stipulated under Section 15(3)(1)(a)(aa) of the Act. It must be noticed that such exercise of power is at the discretion of the Lokayukta. The petitioner has made omnibus assertions. The nature of relief if is limited to the complaint given by him before the Lokayukta, the same would be taken note of. However, having noticed that the Lokayukta itself has closed the complaint, question of issuing direction to the Lokayukta to take recourse to investigation by an agency of the Central Government in terms of Section 15(3)(1)(a)(aa) of the Act cannot be considered. It is also noticed that the Lokayukta has specifically observed that the petitioner has failed to present himself before the Lokayukta and make out his explanation. The relief sought for cannot be considered. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10735 WP No. 111246 of 2015 HC-KAR

In light of the observations made above and taking note that the Lokayukta has also considered the complaint and closed the matter due to absence of the petitioner, this Court finds no legal ground to interfere with the action of the Lokayukta.