- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 31694 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN REDDY K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N.D.RANGASWAMY, S/O N.M.DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SHIRASTEDAR, TALUK OFFICER, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 5103/2024, AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question the order dated 04.03.2025 in Application No.5103/2024 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru ['Tribunal' for short], allowing the application, quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 (Annnexure-A9), insofar as the applicant/respondent No.1 herein, with further direction in a time-bound manner. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. A brief factual matrix are as under: The applicant joined the first respondent/State as Second Division Assistant on 12.07.1989. As on the date of the complaint, the applicant was working - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 as Shirastedar, at the office of the Tahsildar, Belur, Hassan District. 4. One Sri.Nagaraju of Tejur Koppal Village, Arkalagudu Taluk, filed a complaint with the second respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta herein alleging that the land bearing Sy.No.31/8 of Tejur Koppal Village, measuring 1 acre 04 guntas, was standing in the name of his grandfather and there was some attempt of encroachment found on the said land, which made him to file objections before the Tahsildar, Belur, with respect to mutation entry. It is his further allegation that despite the objection there was change in the record of rights, inserting the name of one Sri.Dasegowda S/o. Eregowda. On the basis of complaint, report was forwarded to the Government by the Karnataka Lokayukta seeking entrustment of the matter. The Government vide order dated 28.04.2018, entrusted the enquiry with the Hon'ble Upalokayukta (Annexure-A1). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 5. Pursuant to the order of entrustment, Articles of Charge dated 03.05.2019 came to be issued against the applicant and other 3 Delinquent Government Officials (Annexure-A2). The applicant submitted his reply to the charge levelled against him. However, the Enquiry Officer not satisfied with the reply statement submitted by the applicant as well as others proceeded to hold the enquiry and ultimately held that the charges levelled against the applicant and others proved, holding that the applicant and other Delinquent Government Officials have not followed the procedural law contained in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, while changing the Khata with respect to record of rights of the survey number stated supra. To be precise, there is violation of Section 129(2) and this was done as per the allegations of the complainant by accepting bribe from the opponent party and the same amounts to misconduct within the provisions of prevailing Rules. Having concluded the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 forwarded the same to the petitioner/Lokayukta. In turn the Lokayukta forwarded the same to the Government with recommendation. The Government upon receipt of Enquiry Officer's report and recommendation issued second show cause notice on the applicant calling for explanation. The applicant submitted his detailed reply on 04.10.2023 (Annexure-A8). Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the applicant, the Government passed order impugned dated 28.06.2024, imposing the penalty of withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty, the applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.5103/2024. In response to the notice, the State as well as petitioner/Lokayukta filed the reply statement supporting the enquiry report, recommendation and the order of penalty. 6. The applicant urged before the Tribunal that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the reply - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 filed along with the appropriate documents to show that there are proceedings between the complainant's family and the person whose name entered in the revenue records. It is on record that the father of the complainant filed appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which ultimately ended in dismissal by the Assistant Commissioner. Besides this, a civil proceeding in OS.No.135/2015 on the file of Civil Judge at J.M.F.C, Arakalagudu was pending between Dasegowda and the father of complainant. The suit in OS.No.135/2015 was decreed on 02.12.2019. An appeal in R.A.No.65/2019 filed by the defendants, that is the father of complainant came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.09.2022, confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.135/2015. 7. The applicant has further urged before the Tribunal that there is no evidence available, much less the substantial evidence before the Enquiry - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 Officer to substantiate the alleged charge that there is violation of provisions in entering the name of opponent, by accepting the bribe, from opposite parties. There is no document available on record to show that when the bribe was demanded and paid by the opponent to the applicant and other Delinquent Government Officials. The PW1 examined before the Enquiry Officer, not stated anything regarding the allegation of demand of bribe by the applicant and other Delinquent Government Officials with the opponent and receipt of the same. Even on the preponderance of probabilities, when there is allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and the same is reason for favouring order by changing the name in Khata and corresponding RTCs, required to be proved. 8. He further stated that, in the circumstances, there is no evidence made out to prove the allegations and the charge levelled. Besides, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Lokayukta or the Government considered the documents placed along with the reply. In these circumstances, the entire enquiry is vitiated and the order passed on the report and recommendation renders unsustainable in law and perverse to the materials placed before the authorities. 9. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions and after perusal of the entire materials placed before it, held that there is no proof to substantiate the allegations and the charges levelled against the applicant, in these circumstances, the entire enquiry is rendered without evidence, and as such suffers from perversity and any order based on the said enquiry report gets vitiated under law. 10. The Tribunal has underscored its reasons on the said contentions especially in paragraph No.9A and B, which we reproduce as under: "9A. Looking to the Enquiry Officer's report, it is dated 28.02.2023, copy of the same - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 produced by the applicant on running page 109 of the application. Looking to the Enquiry Officer's report, on the side of the Disciplinary Authority, the complainant Sri Nagaraju has been examined as PW1 and the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 got marked. On the side of the defense, whether witness/es examined or whether any document/s produced, it is not mentioned in the Annexures of the enquiry report. However, while arguing the matter, the learned counsel for the applicant made the submission that the applicant not cross- examined PW1 as opportunity was not given to him and even no opportunity was given to him to give his defense evidence also. But perusing the materials, it is noted that when the entry was made in the name of Sri Dasegowda regarding Sy.No.31/8 to the extent of 1 acre 04 guntas, the said entry was challenged by the plaintiff Sri Annaiah before the Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura in R.A.No.145/2015-16 and the said appeal filed as under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which Came to be disposed of by the order date 25.08.2020 wherein the said appeal was rejected by the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Not only that, regarding the said land, civil suit was also filed in O.S.No.135/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalagudu against one Smt. Puttamma w/o. late Marigowda, one Sri Annaiah So. late Siddaiah and one Sri Krishnappa S/o. Siddaiah. The said suit was disposed of by the judgement dated 02.12.2019 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction against the defendants in the said suit came to be decreed and judgement was also drawn accordingly which is dated 13.12.2019 Against the decree of the said suit, the defendants in the said suit preferred an appeal in R.A.No.65/2019 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Arakalagudu and the said appeal came to be disposed of by the judgement and order dated 23.09.2022. Therefore, the contention of the complainant and his relatives were rejected by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 the Revenue Court and Civil court, so also in the regular appeal. It is no doubt true that in the complaint lodged by the complainant Sri Nagaraju, there are allegations that Revenue officers i.e., Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector as well as Deputy Tahasildar and Tahasildar ordered for change of khata by entering the name of the Sri. Dasegowda taking the bribe amount and also by creating false and fabricated documents. When the complainant has been examined as PW1 before the Enquiry Officer, though he was not cross-examined by the applicant, we have carefully perused his deposition copy. Regarding the allegation that the Revenue officers ordered for change of khatha by taking the bribe and also producing the false and fabricated document, what was the bribe amount, on which date it was received and out of four DGOs who has received the bribe amount and what are the documents created, absolutely there is no mention in the 1complaint as well as in his oral evidence. Therefore, they are bald and vague allegations made by the complainant before the Lokayukta Authority. When the said allegations are not at all established, then case to be taken as simple case of change of khata by entering the name of the Sri Dasegowda in the records of rights of Sy.No.31/8. When that is so, appeal remedy is available as provided under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by preferring the appeal. That remedy was already invoked and the same came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. Even in the civil suit also, the plaintiff succeeded and against the judgement and decree in the civil suit, appeal is preferred which also came to be dismissed. 9B. Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing the matter also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered in the case of SUBHINDRA A. GUMASTE -VS- STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.P.Nos.25075 to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 25080/2016 (GM-KLA) decided on 15.07.2016. We perused the said decision and principle of the said order. Even looking to the said order also, the Revenue Court has already considered the matter and contention of the plaintiff therein was upheld by rejecting R.A.No.145/2015-16. Hence, the Enquiry Officer without considering all these aspects of the matter and simply relied upon the evidence of PW1 and documents produced by him, proceeded to record the finding that the charge against the applicant has been proved. The Enquiry Officer wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded to hold that the charge is proved against the applicant. Perusing the materials, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is perverse in nature and it is not in accordance with the materials placed before him by way of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the applicant has made out a case." 11. The Tribunal held that the Enquiry Officer has not considered all the material evidence and document in the enquiry but swayed on the evidence of PW1 and the documents produced by him and proceeded to record that the finding that the charge levelled against the applicant has been proved, amounts to wrong appreciation/ reading of evidence and amounts to perversity. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application and quashed the order impugned - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 produced at Annexure-A9, insofar as the applicant is concerned and directed the Government to pay all consequential benefits including financial benefits, to which the applicant is legally entitled within a time bound manner. It is this order passed in the application is called in question in this petition. 12. Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondent No.3 are heard. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 13. Sri.K.S.Mallikarjun Reddy, tried to emphasize on the point that as per the charge levelled against the applicant and other Delinquent Government Officials, there is violation of procedural law as contemplated under the Land Revenue Act which indicates that the applicant and other Delinquent Government Officials have accepted bribe. 14. He further urges before us that what is to be proved before the Enquiry officer in Departmental - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 Enquiry is on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The complainant has been examined as PW1, submitted all the documents and the evidence even not controverted by the applicant. However, to the query of the Court regarding substantial material documents to show that there is demand by the applicant and other Delinquent Government Officials with the opponent and the payment and receipt of the same by the applicant and others and the documents which were alleged to be false and fabricated, on the basis of which, the Khata entries changed, the learned counsel is not in a position to place anything to substantiate the said contention, rather the learned counsel is emphasizing only on the point that there is procedural deviation that is non-compliance of provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the reason is the bribe by the opponent. 15. We are not inclined to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to take a contrary view than the one taken by the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50848-DB WP No. 31694 of 2025 Tribunal. The Tribunal underscores its reasons on the available records and recorded a categorical finding that no materials found in the record to substantiate the charges and allegations and in the absence of the said documents, the entire report is on no evidence. In view of settled position of law, the said conclusion by the enquiry officer vitiates for lack of evidence. 16. Having gone through the entire materials placed in the writ petition, we are not persuaded to take a contrary view than the one taken by the Tribunal. In these circumstances the petition sans merit and is accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 ct-vn