CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11408/2025

1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 20331/2015 (GM-KLA). By the said order, the High Court set aside the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Lokayukta, Karnataka, on the sole ground that the writ petitioner before it had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the passing of the said order. The High Court, accordingly, remanded the matter to the Lokayukta, Karnataka, for reconsideration in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

2. Aggrieved by this remand order, the Additional Registrar, Enquiries, attached to the Office of the Lokayukta, Karnataka, filed this appeal.

3. By order dated 10.11.2017, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court of Karnataka.

4. Perusal of the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Lokayukta, Karnataka, reflects that certain correspondence and survey reports were considered in relation to the alleged encroachments made by the writ petitioner and others over and above lands leased out to them. Specific reliance was placed upon the survey report dated 02.06.2014 of the Additional Principal Conservator of Forests and the authorities were directed by the Lokayukta, Karnataka, to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action for recovery of the penalties from the lease holders, who had carried out mining operations in excess areas, over and above the lands leased out to them. An action taken report was directed to be placed before the Lokayukta, Karnataka, in that regard within a period of six months.

5. It may be noted that the aforestated order dated 04.06.2014 specifically indicated the names of the four lessees, including the writ petitioner before the High Court, detailing the area of the land leased out to them as well as the area allegedly encroached upon by them. However, none of the said persons were put on notice of the proceedings before the Lokayukta, Karnataka, and the order that was proposed to be passed therein.

6. Needless to state, the principles of natural justice mandate that before a judicial or quasi-judicial authority passes an order adverse to the interest of a particular person, such a person needs to be given an opportunity of hearing. This is the essence of the rule of audi alteram partem which provides that no person shall be condemned unheard. Adverse civil consequences could not have been visited upon the writ petitioner without giving him a hearing in the matter before doing so.

7. In that view of the matter, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Lokayukta, Karnataka, and requiring a fresh exercise to be undertaken after affording them an opportunity of hearing.

8. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court holding to this effect.

9. The appeal is bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

10. Parties shall bear their own costs.

11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3887/2025

12. In the light of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 11408/2025 today, we find no merit in this appeal.

13. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11392/2025

15. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.01.2023, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 25651 of 2022.

16. The appellant was the petitioner before the High Court in the said writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to the appellant to pursue his remedies. His challenge in that writ petition was to the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Lokayukta, Karnataka. This order was the subject matter of consideration before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 11408/2025 and this Court held, by way of a separate order passed today, that the order dated 04.06.2014 was not sustainable in law as the affected parties were not given an opportunity of hearing before the passing of the said order, though they were named therein. Significantly, the appellant's name also found mention in the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Lokayukta, Karnataka, but he was not given any notice of hearing before the order was passed. In the connected matter, the coordinate Bench of the High Court had remanded the matter to the Lokayukta, Karnataka, for consideration afresh. There was, therefore, no reason for the Division Bench to have taken a different view.

17. For reasons alike as were mentioned by this Court while dismissing Civil Appeal No. 11408/2025 filed by the Additional Registrar, Enquiries, attached to the Office of the Lokayukta, Karnataka, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 25651 of 2022.

18. As the matter now stands remanded to the Lokayukta, Karnataka, for consideration afresh on facts and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the appellant shall also be given notice and be heard before any fresh order is passed.

19. The appeal is allowed in the aforestated terms.

20. Parties shall bear their own costs.

21. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.