Karnataka HC Upholds Permission To Probe Tahsildar Over Land-Record Order Passed Against Dead Man

The petitioner, a Tahsildar, challenged the State Government’s order dated 20 May 2026 under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, granting the Lokayukta permission to investigate allegations concerning his order of 17 October 2023 changing the khata for land in Survey No. 155, Mysuru Taluk.

The petitioner contended that he had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and relied on an endorsement said to have confirmed the proposed action.

The order under investigation had been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, who noted that it had been passed against a person who had died in 2016.

The State’s permission order also referred to the petitioner’s alleged suppression of an earlier Tahsildar’s order and other matters identified in the Deputy Commissioner’s report.

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was the basis for the State’s permission to investigate the alleged conduct of a public servant in the discharge of official functions.

Relying on Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56, the Court noted that action may be initiated in relation to quasi-judicial functions where, among other circumstances, there is prima facie material indicating recklessness or misconduct, or failure to act honestly or in good faith.

The Court distinguished Amresh Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10590/2024, decided 1 April 2025, observing that the circumstances there did not involve a finding of extraneous influence or gratification, unlike the material requiring investigation in the present case.

The Court found that the State had obtained a report from the Deputy Commissioner and considered the allegations and the setting aside of the petitioner’s order before granting permission; this demonstrated application of mind.

The petitioner’s reliance on the alleged endorsement did not displace the basis for investigation: the endorsement was not referred to in his order, was produced on a plain sheet, and its authenticity and significance were matters for investigation.

Applying K.K. Dhawan, the Court held that the quasi-judicial character of the petitioner’s functions did not, by itself, bar investigation where the record disclosed material requiring inquiry.

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and disposed of any pending applications.