The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer vs Sri Subashchandra

H.N. Narayan, J.—These two review petitions are directed against the orders passed by this Court on 30.9.1999 in Miscellaneous First Appeal 1723 of 1997 connected with Cross Appeal No. 1 of 1997 and Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1536 of 1997.

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1723 of 1997 is directed against the award passed by the Reference Court viz., Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga in LAC 468 of 1994 while Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1536 of 1997 is directed against the award passed in LAC 469 of 1994. The lands involved in LAC 468 of 1994 are Sy. Nos. 51/2 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and 53/2 measuring 2 acres of Sardagi (B) village in Gulbarga Taluk while the land involved in LAC 469 of 1994 is Sy. No. 53/1B measuring 0.8 guntas. These lands were acquired under 4(1) notification which was notified in the official gazette on 4.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer ("LAO" for short) has fixed the market value of these lands at Rs. 9,040/- per acre treating them as agricultural lands by adopting sales statistics method. Upon an application made by the claimant, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the correct market value of the acquired lands. Reference Court viz., Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,04,500/- per acre with regard to the land bearing Sy. No. 53/2 measuring 2 acres treating it as a non-agricultural land and Rs. 28,800/- per acre with regard to land bearing Sy. No. 51/2 measuring 1.25 acres. The reference Court has also granted market value at the rate of Rs. 1,04,500/- per acre in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 53/1B involved in LAC 469 of 1994 with all consequential statutory benefits.

When the State Government has questioned the enhancement of compensation in both these LA cases, the claimant has filed Cross Appeal No. 1 of 1997 for enhancement of compensation in respect of non-agricultural land from Rs. 1,04,500/- to Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre. This Court dismissed the State appeals, but allowed the claimant''s Cross Appeal No. 1 of 1997 and enhanced compensation by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,08,000/- per acre. Revision Petition No. 28 of 1999 is filed by the State to review the order passed by this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal 1723 of 1997 connected with Cross Appeal No. 1 of 1997 and Revision Petition 95 of 2000 is directed against the order passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal 1536 of 1997.

It is submitted by the State in these review petitions that the Respondent Subashchandra is not the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 53/2, by mistake the name of Subashchandra is shown as the owner in respect of the said land though he was not the owner. This fact has been over looked throughout by the government as well as the Petitioner. His brother Basavaraja is the owner of the said land. It is further submitted that the Respondent-claimant has given the date of taking possession as 1.1.1947 to the LAO who has not verified the records pertaining to the date of taking possession of the land by the Government or by himself. He has committed grave error in calculation sheet which is pending inquiry before the Divisional Commissioner who has fixed the responsibility of committing grave error and loss to the State exchequer. It is further submitted that this Court held that possession of the land was taken on 1.1.1947 on the basis of the preliminary notification issued in respect of the land. Though in this review petition, the Petitioner does not question the enhancement of compensation granted in respect of the said land, is questioning the date of taking possession of the land on 1.1.1947. It is submitted that no ground is raised in Miscellaneous First Appeal 1536 of 1997 regarding the date of taking possession. The Reference Court has also not mentioned on which date possession was taken. While narrating these facts it is further submitted by the Petitioner that Bidar-Srirangapatna road for which the lands at Saradagi-B village, Gulbarga Taluk were acquired, is a very ancient road. The land that was sought to be acquired in this case was the land bearing Sy. No. 51/2 alleged to have been forming part and parcel of the said road. It is further submitted that the road was formed during the earlier period of Nizam Shahi rule, erstwhile State of Hyderabad. The abovesaid land was not within the territory of Karnataka State, but it was in erstwhile Hyderabad State. It is further submitted that according to the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 Part I, Chapter IV under the heading "Land and Land Revenue at para 24, all the public roads, lands, patties, bridges, dikes, rivers, nalas, tanks, kuntas, canals, lakes and flowing water and all the lands where situated together with all rights appertaining thereto, are the property of the Government and that the said land which is claimed to be part of Bidar- Srirangapatna Road, had vested with the Government of Hyderabad. But the Respondent has sent a letter dated 3.10.1989 to the Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, for grant of compensation to the abovesaid land. It was mentioned in the said letter that the Government road passes through Sy. No. 51 and that the compensation has to be paid in respect of the said land. In pursuance of the said letter, the proposals for acquisition of lands to an extent of 3.25 guntas in Sy. Nos. 51/2 and 53/2 for Bidar-Srirangapatna Road was sent by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Gulbarga, to the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga vide letter No. REV.LAQ. 302 of 1992-93, dated 22.10.1992. Section 4(1) notification was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, vide order No. REV.LAQ.476 of 1992-93, dated 18.1.1993 and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 4.3.1993. In the Gazette Notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ("the Act" for short), the owner of the land in respect of Sy. No. 51 measuring 1.24.50 guntas was shown as Subashchandra and the land bearing Sy. No. 53 measuring 1.28.22 guntas was shown as belonging to Sri Basavaraja, son of Mahantappa. The final notification u/s 6(1) of the Act was issued on 26.10.1993 and published in the Gazette on 23.12.1993 wherein the lands mentioned in Sy. No. 51/2 measuring 1.24 guntas as belonging to Subashchandra, S/o. Mahantappa and land bearing No. 53/2 measuring 2 acres as belonging to Basavaraja, S/O. Mahantappa was shown. The Respondent Subashchandra in his application dated 20.1.1994 had claimed Rs. 70,000/- per acre as the market value of the land. It is submitted that Sy. No. 51/2 was not taken possession on 1.1.1947 as claimed by the Respondent as it was the existing road which belonged to Hyderabad Nizam State. The Respondent was not the owner of the land also as on that date. The Respondent has now filed an Execution case claiming Rs. 30,78,000/- towards interest and additional market value apart from market value of the land. It is further submitted that the Respondent was not paying the land revenue since 1953 as the amount of Rs. 16/- towards land revenue in respect of the above said land in Sy. Nos. 51 and 53/2 of Saradagi-B village was waived off and as such, the Respondent is not entitled for payment of compensation in respect of the land. The Government has now instituted an inquiry in respect of the subject matter of the land in question which is acquired and alleged to have taken possession by the Government on 1.1.1947. Respondent who is not entitled under law for payment of any interest from 1.1.1947 is making unjust enrichment at the cost of the State Exchequer. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter requires reconsideration in the hands of the Reference Court and requested this Court to remit the matter for fresh inquiry.

Similar are also the contentions urged in Revision Petition 95 of 2000.

The present Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga Sri H.R. Mahadev filed an affidavit swearing to certain facts which came to his knowledge after investigating the background of this acquisition proceedings. The letter addressed by the Respondent to the Assistant Commissioner and the Revenue Secretary dated 3.10.1989 contains pleas which are factually incorrect and based on falsehood with ulterior motives and the entire claim is an attempt to play fraud on the Government to secure unjust enrichment. The Respondent''s father purchased Sy. Nos. 51/2 and 53/2 under two registered documents dated 29.8.1952 and 2.6.1961 respectively and an extent of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy. No. 51/2 and 2 acres in Sy. No. 53/2 are stated to be the subject for acquisition for the purpose of road. But unfortunately, on the basis of this plea made in the letter dated 3.10.1989, the Revenue Authorities in total ignorance of the factual position and in a mechanical manner without applying their mind or examining the true facts and in collusion with the Respondent have proceeded to build up (the word ''collusion'' is struck off in the affidavit) records to show that a notification under 4(1) was issued on 18.1.1993 and notification under 6(1) was issued on 26.10.1993. The land was not acquired in pursuance of the provisions of the Section 17 of the Act. The so called acquisition and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof constitute a fraud against the Government as manifest from the following circumstances:

a) The lands in question are inam lands which were originally belonged to one Khaja Hussain and Shivalingappa respectively.

(b) There existed the road between Bidar and Srirangapatna for over 100 years and part of this road passed though Sy. Nos. 51/2 and 53/2. The entire area formerly was part of the territory of the Nizam of Hyderabad and the State of Mysore (now Karnataka) secured this area in terms of the States Reorganization Act with effect from 1.11.1956. Thus the road has been recognized even during the period the land was part of the Nizam territory and has continued as a road even after the lands became part of the State of Mysore (now Karnataka).

(c) There can be no question of the Respondent claiming compensation in respect of the land which has been part of the road for over 100 years and in particular against the State of Karnataka when no such claim was made against the Nizam territory at any relevant period. A copy of the Nazim Jamma Bandhi is produced and marked as Annexure-3 which is for the year 1945 which shows that the road was in existence and in consequence thereof the reduction in the land revenue is given. The map is produced and marked as Annexure-4 which also shows the existence of the road running throughout the territory.

(d) The Respondent claims that Sy. No. 51/2 was purchased on 29.8.1952 and Sy. No. 53/2 was purchased on 2.6.1961 by Mahanthappa, the father of the Respondent and he has not made any claim to compensation for several decades and it is only until the Respondent who chose to make his false claim. Copies of the sale deeds are produced and marked at Annexures-5 and 6. In any even the claim not having been preferred to the Government which could have been made liable for taking over of the property more than 100 years ago by persons who were then the owners of the land, the State of Karnataka cannot be made liable by a proceeding started at the instance of the Respondent in 1993.

(e) The letter dated 11.11.1992 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Gulbarga Division affirms the existence of the Srirangapatna-Bidar Road several decades ago. A copy of the Jamma Bandhi showing the reduction in the land revenue in Sy. Nos. 53 and 51 in view of the existence of the road is produced and marked as Annexure-7. This is of the year 1953.

During the process of the acquisition proceedings and proceedings for enhancement of compensation, the concerned officials did not take into account the true picture of the nature of the land and the fact that it had vested many decades ago in the predecessor Government viz., the Government of Nizam. In ignorance of this factual position, various pleas were assumed on the basis of which decisions have been taken. The Respondent has claimed interest from 1.1.1947 by filing execution petition. The Respondent was not even the owner at that point of time and even if there had been a proper acquisition proceedings, he could not have claimed interest from a date anterior to his acquisition of title. Such claim for interest from 1.1.1947 which has been allowed by this Court constitutes a patent error and for this reason also the review petitions deserve to be accepted. At para 7 of the affidavit it is further stated that Srirangapatna-Bidar Road is about 750 K Ms in length and if the Respondent''s case becomes a precedent, it is likely that many other claimants whose lands are included in the road, may stake a claim for compensation. Already, there are certain claims which have been made in view of the success achieved by the Respondent on fraudulent grounds. The Government is taking steps to cancel those acquisitions. The State exchequer would be put to grave loss if such false pleas are allowed and the amount could be as high as Rs. 15,000/- crores. The Respondent is disentitled to expose the State to such heavy financial hazards when his entire conduct is blameworthy and dishonest and he is taking improper advantage of the collusive help secured from certain officials. The very fraudulent foundation for the Respondent''s claim which knocks the bottom out of the case for compensation, is a further ground to go into the entire matter as legal proceedings cannot be the means of extorting money from the State on unjustified and false grounds as otherwise the Court would become an instrument of injustice. The Respondent is not entitled to any indulgence as he has not come to this Court with clean hands. Certain writ petition has been filed in this Court in Writ Petition 12481 of 2000 in public interest wherein the plea has been taken that the entire acquisition proceedings were incompetent and that no relief should be granted to the Respondent.

The Respondent in his counter affidavit dated 26.2.2001 made certain serious defamatory statement against the present Assistant Commissioner Mahadev. It is contended by him that the Court can review its order only where they are apparent errors in the judgment. The matter which is fresh and requires explanation is not a matter for review. The records which are now called for by the appellant could not show any error on record and the lie of the Petitioner was apparent. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner is a lier and corrupt. He used such abuse language in his affidavit by invoking two proverbs "SULLIGE SAVIRA SABOOBU ADARE SATHYAKKE MATRA ONDE SABOOBU". This looks as ''ULTA CHOR KOTHWAL KO DANE''. It is further stated by him that H.R. Mahadev, the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, joined as such, in the month of April, 1999 to store plenty of money through corruption. When the Respondent approached him to deposit the amount after showing the certified copy of this Court. Mr. Mahadev just neglected it but was showing all the symptoms of corrupt person. He did not treat him with the medicines that he wanted, but approached the Court for remedy. He is a corrupt criminal enraged by the order of execution petition, exposed his file to the press and pursued one black mailing politician to file the public interest litigation. It is further stated in the affidavit that Bidar-Srirangapatna road is not an ancient one as Mahadev says in his affidavit Lie No. 1. The second lie was that this road was never formed by rather built by late Nizam. The third lie that the land in question was not taken possession u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act with effect from 1.1.1947 because 16 notification was made by his own office. Therefore, the review petitions are liable to be dismissed. Annexure-4 copy produced by him is only a tourist map and does not show any date of its formation and it is only confusing and misleading. It is further stated that the date of dispossession was not exactly known to the acquired body because they were illegally enjoying the4 land of poor agriculturists and they have never kept the record to show as to from which date they started using his land illegally for the road purpose. However, the correspondence between the LAO and PWD Department, the mutually accepted date was decided as 1.1.1947. The Government officials who are expected to support poor agriculturists are squeezing the agriculturists who are the backbone of this nation. The Assistant Commissioner Mahadev - Probationer has committed blunder mistakes and pronounced multiple lies and made false, meaningless allegations in his review petitions which need to be punished under the false affidavit Act. The Respondent has enclosed RT Cs, survey sketch and tippani and also village map in support of his contentions.

This affidavit is countered by the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga by filing a rejoinder denying all the allegations made in the counter affidavit while reserving his right to take action under law.

The learned Advocate General initiating the debate on this question submitted that after a careful investigation made by the present Assistant Commissioner, certain disclosures are made wherein the Respondent in collusion with the revenue and PWD officials working at Gulbarga during the relevant period, was able to get an order and to initiate acquisition proceedings pertaining to his lands bearing Sy. Nos. 51/2 and 53/2 of Saradgi-B village and the entire proceedings were built up clandestinely ignoring the very fact that Bidar-Srirangapatna road which runs in these Sy. Nos. for over a century, and the Executive Engineer, PWD reported to the revenue officers that the road was in existence since long and how acquisition proceedings could have taken in respect of those lands. The learned Advocate General has also pointed out that the fraud played by the Respondent cannot be allowed to continue to enrich himself on that ground and that fraud unravels everything though the review petitions are specifically filed to review the order of this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeals regarding the date of interest awarded, the entire matter requires to be examined by this Court, the background on which a fraudulent acquisition proceedings has been initiated by the Respondent by writing a letter to the revenue officials in his letter dated 3.10.1989. The learned Advocate General has submitted that it matters much when it comes to the involvement of the revenue officials responsible for such fraudulent initiation of land acquisition and submitted that the Government has now initiated appropriate action in the matter. The learned Advocate General has taken me through relevant records and submitted that the road was formed long back during Nizam''s time and the Gulbarga area which was part of erstwhile Hyderabad merged with Karnataka after formation of Karnataka on 1.11.1956 and that the land revenue was exempted in the year 1953 to the extent of land used for the purpose of Bidar-Srirangapatna road and the question of claiming any compensation for already existing road does not arise. Even otherwise, the Respondent''s father who purchased the lands in the years 1953 and 1961 has also not made any claim. The existence of road in the said lands is borne out from the records produced by him. Therefore, prima facie there is enough material to show that it is a fraudulent transaction wherein the Respondent attempted to enrich himself to the tune of crores of rupees and take advantage of the success achieved by the Respondent and certain claims have already been made before the Assistant Commissioner which if allowed, would put the Government to great loss and injury to the tune of more than Rs. 15,000/- crores.

In rebutting these contentions, the Respondent in person submitted that no such pleas were made before the LAO or before the Reference Court or this Court and the Government has now opened its eyes and on the basis of some unconnected records tried to make much of the acquisition proceedings and the corrupt officials are responsible for these review petitions and therefore submitted that the review petitions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.

In the light of the seriousness of contentions canvassed for consideration in these review petitions, whether it is permissible for this Court to go beyond the scope of review petitions and set aside the land acquisition proceedings.

(a) It is true as contended by the Respondent that the scope of review as provided in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is limited which are applicable under normal circumstances. But where fraud is played in snatching an order from the Court, it ravels everything.

There is no dispute that two lands in question viz., Sy. No. 51/2 and 53/2 of Sardagi-B village belonged to the father of the Respondent who purchased them in the year 1953 and 1961 respectively. It is undisputed that his father or his predecessors have not initiated any acquisition proceedings nor claimed compensation on account of formation of road in these lands. It is admitted that the Respondent was a minor when his father purchased these lands. The purchase of Sy. Nos. 51/2 measuring 1.25 guntas relate back to roughly about 40 years prior to the date of the claim made by the Respondent. The State has produced Khastra pahani patrike Annexure-2 to show that these lands originally belonged to one Raja Hussain and Shivalingappa respectively. They have also produced records to show that the exemption on revenue was given to the extent of the lands used for formation of the road. These are all borne out from the revenue records which are 30 year old documents.

It is the contention of the State that Bidar-Srirangapatna road runs through these two lands and according to the Respondent 1.25 acres in Sy. No. 51/2 and 2 acres in Sy. No. 53/2 is acquired for the purpose of this road. The nature of the claim made by the Respondent is undoubtedly clear that the road was formed after 1.1.1947. This is one attempt made by the Respondent which shows that the State has taken possession of the land on 1.1.1947. He has claimed interest from the date of taking over possession which according to him is 1.1.1947. Formation of road in 1947 was not within the personal knowledge of the Respondent as he was not born at that time. His father was not the owner on 1.1.1947. His predecessor-in-title did not claim nor raised any such claim before the respective Governments claiming compensation. It is undisputed that the possession was taken even according to the Respondent by the erstwhile State of Hyderabad during Nizam''s time. The area was under the Nizam rule. Whether the road is a century old road or it is only 50 year old is a controversy which cannot be decided in these petitions, which needs evidence. But in view of the claim made by the Respondent himself, the Court can safely hold that the road was formed after 1.1.1947 even before independence. When the revenue records disclose that the road runs through these Sy. Nos. for over 50 years and when the officials concerned including PWD and revenue officials who used the very road to reach Bangalore from Gulbarga, it is not known how the Deputy Commissioner could accord sanction to initiate acquisition proceedings. It is worth recalling an observation made by his Lordships in State of Karnataka Vs. Annegowda by LRs., at para 16 as under:

The State might be a party, but the Government is an impersonal body. The Government does not move like a Quartz watch. Nor acts as quickly as in the case of individuals. There is a red-tape which causes inevitable delay in the functioning of Government offices.

As observed in that case, having regard to the facts of that case, I find in the present case, some what disquieting and disturbing features. I cannot being left with the suspicion that there was soft pedling for various benefits. The Respondent has made serious allegations against the present Assistant Commissioner to initiate appropriate action against him if he is aggrieved and if so advised.

This Court has granted interest from the date of taking possession. When this question came up for consideration before this Court in appeals, a copy of the preliminary notification was produced for my perusal which copy was also produced at the time of hearing the arguments of review petitions which disclose the date of taking possession on 1.1.1947. If the LAO can build up fraudulent proceedings and was able to get sanction from the Deputy Commissioner, there is no surprise to notify in the Gazette notification regarding date of taking possession. If the entire matter requires to be investigated, I am not surprised from the date mentioned in the preliminary notification regarding the date of taking possession. Unfortunately, in these proceedings, starting from Day one when the LAO passed the award and when the reference Court adjudicated by determining the market value and where the State Government questioned the order of the Reference Court in these Miscellaneous First Appeals in this Court, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Government has not chosen to appraise the Court of all these developments as they were ignorant of these facts. There has been no proper response from the concerned officials to appraise the facts to the concerned Government Advocates. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Government Advocates were handicapped in conducting the case without any assistance from the concerned Departments. Though pleas in review petitions are restricted to review the judgment insofar as the award of interest from 1.1.1947, it is pleaded by the Assistant Commissioner in his counter affidavit which is further canvassed by the learned Advocate General that the Court has to go into the entire matter as legal proceedings cannot be the means of extorting money from the State on unjustified and false grounds as otherwise the Court would become an instrument of injustice.

The learned Advocate General has relied upon the judgment of Lord Denning, L.J. of England in Lazarus Estates Limited v. Beasley (1956) All ELR 340 who has stated thus:

We are in this case concerned only with this point: Can the declaration be challenged on the ground that it was false and fraudulent? It can clearly be challenged in the criminal Courts. The landlord can be taken before the Magistrate and fined.... Or he can be prosecuted on indictment and (if he is an individual) sent to prison.... The landlords argued before us that the declaration could not be challenged in the Civil Courts at all, even though it was false and fraudulent, and that the landlords can recover and keep the increased rent even though it was obtained by fraud. If this argument is correct, the landlords would profit greatly from their fraud. The increase in rent would pay the fine many times over. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever.... So here I am of opinion that, if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void and the landlords cannot recover any increase of rent by virtue of it

This dictum of Lord Denning met with approval at the hands of Supreme Court in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 733.

In Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, at paras 118 and 119, the Apex Court has stated as follows:

Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end design. There is a distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith. The former arises when an authority misuses its power in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide, and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of fraud on powers. The misuse in bad faith arises when the power is exercised for an improper motive, say to satisfy a private or personal grudge or for wreaking vengeance of a Minister as in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964 SC 733.... The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Over town, 1904 AC 515 that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the powers shall be used bona fide for he purpose for which they are conferred.

At page 722 in Lazarus case, Parker, C.J. observed that "Fraud" vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.

It is unnecessary for me to rely upon any more observations to emphasize the fact that fraudulent order of a Court of Officer cannot be allowed to sustain. It is true that there is no enough material right now placed before the Court to conclusively hold that the road was formed about a century old. But there is enough material to show that Bidar-Srirangapatna road which is 750 K Ms road was formed long prior to the formation of State of Karnataka. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General that State of Karnataka is not answerable to any such cases which were done prior to amalgamation of States. Prima facie, it is apparent on record that too land acquisition proceedings in these case, are a product of fraud. The corrupt government officials have colluded with the Respondent and built up false records. All those officials who are involved in initiating land acquisition cases are necessary to be punished in accordance with law.

While upholding the contentions of the learned Advocate General, I am of the opinion that the judgments of this Court have to be reviewed. The proceedings culminated in the judgment of this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeals cannot be used as a means to extort money from the State on unjustified and false ground as otherwise the Court would become an instrument of injustice. The Court is of the firm opinion that the matter requires to be reinvestigated and reconsidered in the hands of the reference Court. It is not the realm of this Court to set aside the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government in the year 1993 by issuing notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act as acquisition is questioned in Writ Petition No. 12481 of 2000 filed in public interest.

In Annegowda''s case, a similar matter of this nature of some great importance came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in review petition. The subject matter involved in the suit which was decreed by the trial Court, confirmed by the Appellate Court viz., High Court was sought to be reviewed after considerable delay. The land involved in the appeal was forest land with valuable timber worth crores of rupees. It was a Government forest which covers an area of 339 acres 19 guntas in Malnad area viz., Sakaleshpur Taluk. Annegowda (Plaintiff) really had no title to the property. He tried to knock off the property by manipulation of revenue records. Even the original records were surreptiously replaced and manipulation was an act of a master mind. It was apparently by connivance of some of the revenue officials of revenue Department then in charge of the records. Unfortunately, the issues at stake in the suit filed by Annegowda were little explored. The Special Deputy Commissioner who was in charge of the revenue records was not eo nomine party to the suit. Learned Advocate General also urged that the officers in charge of the records did not bring out the nugget of truth to the notice of the Court obviously for oblique motives and the public interest would greatly suffer if the delay in filing the Review Petition is not condoned (facts extracted from para 12 of the judgment in Annegowda''s case).

In that case it was argued for the successful Respondent-Plaintiff that the State was inactive or negligent after dismissal of the appeal by this Court and was only when the matter was raised in the Assembly by a Call Attention Notice, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, became active in an attempt to probe into the matter. The fact that the High Court allowed the review petitions recalling the judgment passed by the High Court in Regular First Appeals and the Apex Court dismissed the Plaintiff''s SLP by setting aside all the judgments rendered by the High Court and trial Court with a direction for fresh trial is another matter records of which are now confined to the archieves of Vidhana Soudha and High Court. The case on hand is no better. While the officials involved in Annegowda''s case have manipulated the records to knock off the Government property, but the officials of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, are involved in this case in building up records and obtaining the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner who accorded sanction of the Deputy Commissioner who accorded sanction for acquisition of the land without application of mind and thereby attempted to knock off crores of rupees. But for the Officers like Mr. Mahadev, the present Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, the Government could have lost crores and crores of rupees. All his predecessors in office suppressed the truth of the matter and properly apprise the Government Advocates who appear for the Land Acquisition Officer while defending the reference proceedings and also the appeals in the High Court. Not that all the Government officials are corrupt or inefficient or fraudulent. The clouds are not always block in the sky. One can always find a silver line in these dark clouds and a citizen of this country lives upon hopes of seeing these silver lines in the block clouds and they are back bone to the Government and it is only such people who act to make effort to bring out all the dirt in the system and to clean the system and show good governance which is beneficial to the great people of the State. Government Notification has been issued for acquisition of lands which were part of the State Highway for over decades. In Annegowda''s case a Call attention notice was issued by the Members of the Legislative Assembly about the fraud played on the Government by the revenue officers in collusion with Annegowda in that case. However, at the fag end of the proceedings Mr. Mahadev, the Probationary Assistant Commissioner has come to the aid of the State in investigating this fraud at right time. If the Government finds on proper investigation that the Respondent herein is a part of the fraud, he is liable to be prosecuted for such of those offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

Suffice it to say, that the judgments of the Reference Court and this Court as obtained by playing fraud by suppressing the truth, but the Court of Justice cannot allow this fraud to continue and sustain. Therefore, the orders passed by the Reference Court in LAC Nos. 468 and 469 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga and the judgments passed by this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeals 1536 of 1997 and 1723 of 1997 connected with Cross Appeal No. 1 of 1997 are set aside. The judgments rendered in Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 1536 and 1723 of 1997 connected with Cross Appeal No. 1 of 1997 are recalled. The entire matter is remitted to the Court below viz., the Reference Court to consider the claim afresh and to consider the following questions before passing appropriate orders:

(a) To examine whether the reference made u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act is in accordance with law;

(b) Whether the acquisition proceedings are product of fraud and if so, whether the claim made by the Respondent-claimant is justifiable.

These review petitions stand disposed of with the above directions.