Karnataka Licensed Surveyors Declared Public Servants: Supreme Court Ruling in State Through Lokayukta Police vs. C. N. Manjunath

Land revenue administration in India plays a crucial role in governance, and the appointment of licensed surveyors under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, raised significant legal questions about their status under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case of State Through Lokayukta Police, Raichur vs. C. N. Manjunath dealt with the fundamental issue of whether a licensed surveyor under Section 18A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act qualifies as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Background of the Case

The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, was amended in 1999 to introduce Section 18A, allowing the appointment of private individuals as licensed surveyors to assist in clearing the backlog of pending land mutation and survey cases. These licensed surveyors were required to possess prescribed qualifications and were authorized to prepare land survey sketches for private landowners.

The case arose when C. N. Manjunath, a licensed surveyor, was accused of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Lokayukta Police, Raichur, filed charges, arguing that he was a public servant under Section 2(c) of the Act and thus liable for prosecution under anti-corruption laws. However, conflicting rulings from different Karnataka High Court benches led to a larger bench ruling that licensed surveyors should be classified as public servants.

Legal Issues Raised

Does a licensed surveyor under Section 18A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act qualify as a ‘public servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
What is the nature of duties performed by licensed surveyors?
What role does government control play in determining the classification of these surveyors?

Petitioner’s (Lokayukta Police) Arguments

The State argued that licensed surveyors exercised statutory duties conferred by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and were appointed under government regulation.
They performed tasks previously handled by government surveyors and contributed to the administration of land records.
Their actions had a direct impact on the land records maintained by the government, which meant that they performed ‘public duty’ as per Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
They were regulated under Rules 46-A to 46-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, making them accountable under government oversight.

Respondent’s (C. N. Manjunath) Arguments

The defense argued that licensed surveyors were private individuals providing services on a contractual basis and could not be treated as government employees.
Unlike full-time government surveyors, licensed surveyors were paid fees directly by private parties and were not salaried by the government.
The Prevention of Corruption Act applies to individuals drawing remuneration from the government or performing duties directly under government control.
Since licensed surveyors could lose their licenses due to misconduct, their accountability was administrative, not criminal under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, with a bench comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, upheld the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench ruling that licensed surveyors should be classified as public servants. The court noted:

Licensed surveyors performed statutory duties of preparing survey sketches, which were part of the land revenue administration.
They were subject to rigorous training and examination, and their licenses were granted, regulated, and revoked by the Karnataka government.
Their role in land mutation, partition, and alienation of land was integral to maintaining government records and facilitating revenue collection.
Since licensed surveyors were recognized by the state and acted on its behalf in crucial public functions, they met the criteria of public servants under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The judgment established key legal principles regarding the classification of individuals performing government functions:

Private individuals can be classified as public servants if they perform legally recognized public duties under government supervision.
Government licensing, regulation, and control over duties contribute to determining the status of public servants.
Licensed surveyors, though not government employees, are part of the land administration system and impact public records, warranting their classification as public servants.
The ruling paves the way for stricter accountability in land administration, ensuring that licensed surveyors remain transparent and free from corruption.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching consequences for land revenue administration and corruption control mechanisms:

It extends the definition of public servants to include professionals with statutory duties impacting public records.
It strengthens anti-corruption laws by ensuring that even non-government individuals performing essential public duties remain accountable.
The ruling sets a precedent for other professions regulated by the government, potentially broadening the scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Final Outcome

With this ruling, the Supreme Court:

Allowed Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016, confirming that licensed surveyors qualify as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 113-114 of 2017, upholding the Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench decision.

This decision brings greater legal clarity to the responsibilities of licensed professionals in governance-related activities, ensuring enhanced accountability and regulatory oversight in India’s land administration system.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State Through Lokayu vs C. N. Manjunath Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-11-2016.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category