Ninge Gowda Vs. Jayamma and ors.

.....of remarks in the confidential record of any judicial officer shall be strictly in accordance with the rules, 1994 and the notification. any deviation in this regard will affect the career of judicial officer and also on his reputation. on facts held, the notification dated 15.11.1988 specifies two report forms as part a and part b. clause (2) of this notification specifies that the district judges shall fill up and submit in duplicate form part a in respect of himself to the high court by 31st january each year for taking further action by the high court. in the instant case, the petitioner who was a district judge had not submitted form part a to the high court. in the absence of form part a by the petitioner, the recording of adverse remarks in his confidential record by then chief justice is contrary to notification dated 15.11.1988. therefore, the impugned communication of adverse remarks are liable to be quashed. -- karnataka judicial services (recruitment) rules, 1983. rule 3(2): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] rules regulating the conditions of service - petitioners prayer for quashing the communication, the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential record for the year 1998- grievance of the petitioner, the adverse remark is recorded in his confidential record are made without jurisdiction whether chief justice is the competent authority to record adverse remarks in the confidential record of a district judge - held, the competent person to record adverse remarks in the confidential record of a district judge is the concerned administrative judge and not the chief justice. on facts, held, the competent person to record adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner was the concerned administrative judge i.e., justice t.n. vallinayagam and not then chief justice. in the instant case, it was then chief justice who had recorded the impugned adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner and the same was without jurisdiction...........by a registered sale deed dated- 16th aug., 1975. thereupon the wife and three children of rame gowda presented a petition before the deputy commissioner, mandya under s. 39 of the karnataka prevention of fragmentation and consolidation of holdings act, 1966 ('the act'). without even a notice to the petitioner, the deputy commissioner held that the sale was void because the land sold was a fragment as defined under the said act. the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of the deputy commissioner before the karnataka appellate tribunal. the tribunal no doubt, held that the deputy commissioner ought not to have made the order without hearing the petitioner. yet it confirmed the order of the deputy commissioner on the sole ground that there was no valid defence for the petitioner in the case. it held that the alienation made by rame gowda was in clear transgression of the provisions of s. 6 of the act. the validity of these orders is called into question in this writ petition.2. it is now not necessary to consider whether the order of the deputy commissioner was void because it was made without any notice to the petitioner. in the appeal, the petitioner had an adequate opportunity. the tribunal has considered the case on merits after hearing counsel on both sides. therefore, i straightway go into the merits of the matter.3. the tribunal has held that the alienation made by rame gowda was contrary to s. 6 of the act. s. 6 is in the following terms :'6. fragmentation prohibited. - no land 'in any area shall be transferred or partitioned or sub-divided so as to create a fragment.'it is dear from the above provision that what has been prohibited is a transfer or partition or a sub-division so as to create a fragment. if the land was already a fragment, s. 6 cannot be a bar. this may sound illogical, but law is not logic. that is also the view taken by a bench of this court in chayappa santammappa v. mohamad hasan ((1964) 1 mys lj 166 at p. 169). there is also.....