HC upholds strictures, cost on KAS officers over high-handed proceedings in land case

Upholding the order of a single judge, a division bench of the high court has upheld the strictures and costs on two KAS officers for their high-handedness in dealing with a case involving 1.3 acres of land in Bengaluru.

In March this year, the single judge had passed strictures and imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 each on M G Shivanna, Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South subdivision, and Shivappa Lamani, Tahsildar, Bengaluru South, over the proceedings they conducted with regard to the land in 2020.

The property in question is a granted land situated at Doddathoguru village in Begur hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. It changed several hands before real estate firm Unidesign Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd put up construction on area measuring an acre and 30 guntas.

One of the legal heirs of the grantee, M Muniraju, unsuccessfully challenged the mutation order and approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which recommended that the government ensure resumption of the granted land. Taking this as a fresh cause of action, the assistant commissioner declared all the sale deeds — beginning 2001 — null and void.

This order was passed on February 18, and the residential buildings put by Unidesign were demolished on February 26. In these proceedings, Unidesign was neither made a party nor was issued a certified copy of the order on time by the assistant commissioner, denying the firm even the opportunity to approach the court.

The single-judge bench remitted the matter for fresh consideration and directed that the strictures passed and the costs imposed shall be entered in the service register of the officials. Both the officials filed independent appeals requesting expunging the strictures against them in the judgment.

“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 (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act). The assistant commissioner has denied the issuance of certified copy, and therefore, virtually prevented the transferee in approaching a competent court from seeking appropriate orders. Therefore, the observations made by the learned single judge at paragraph 28 are justified,” a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted.

Check out latest DH videos here