Disposed

K M Malleshgowda v. state of karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021WP/14753/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a stay order on alternate land grants. It directed the enquiry officer to establish the genuineness of the petitioner's grant, upheld possession during the six-month final inquiry, and directed removal of stay entries if the grant is found valid.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's possession is maintained; the respondent must remove stay entries in revenue records within 30 days if the grant is found genuine by the enquiry officer.

K M Malleshgowda Vs state of karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14753 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K M MALLESHGOWDA S/O LATE MUDDIREGOWDA AGED 73 YEARS, R/O KARAGADA VILLAGE-573 115 KASABA HOBALI, BELUR TALUKU, HASSAN DIST.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.P. G. YATNAL, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT-573 214

¶13

3 . THE TAHASILDAR, BELUR BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 115

¶14

4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER FOR HEMAVATI CANAL PROJECT, HASANA-573 214

¶15

5 . THE COMMISSIONER FOR REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO

¶16

¶17

THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALRU-560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 03.10.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PASS THE ORDERS ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed

¶24

to accept notice for the respondents.

¶25

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of an Official Memorandum bearing No.LND(2)788/2016-17 dated 03.10.2019 issued by respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry in respect of grant of an alternate land to various persons whose lands

¶26

¶27

were acquired by the State Government Karnataka for Hemavathi/Yagachi, Vatehole Irrigation Project.

¶28

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was the owner of land in Sy. No.48/1, 48/2, 250/1, 250/2, 251/1 and 267/3 of Karagada Village, Kasaba Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, which were acquired for Yagachi Reservoir Project. He claimed that the State Government had reserved Government land in Sy. No.13 of Devalapur for grant of land to persons who were displaced by the Yagachi Project. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application seeking grant of 8 acres of land. The respondent No.4 after obtaining a report from the respondent No.3 and after being satisfied that the petitioner was a 'displaced person' granted 8 acres in Sy. No.13 of Devalapur and also issued grant certificates and also collected fees for the grant and phodi. It is claimed that the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. He claimed that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land granted in his favour and his name

¶29

¶30

was entered in the revenue records. He claimed that respondent No.2 without issuing any notice to the petitioner issued an official memorandum directing the respondent No.3 to enter the words "stay for verification" in Column No.11 of the RTC of all the alternate land granted to the persons who were displaced. The learned counsel contended that this Official Memorandum being without notice is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the State Government itself had reserved various survey numbers of Government land which were proposed to be allotted as alternate land to the persons who were displaced by the Hemavathi/Yagachi/Vatehole irrigation project. He invited the attention of the Court to the acquisition and the consequent awards passed and claimed that the petitioner was displaced person who was lawfully granted alternate land and therefore, there was no need to revisit the grants.

¶31

¶32

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate

¶33

contended that as per the orders of the State Government, alternate land was allotted to persons who were displaced by the irrigation project. He contended that in many cases grants made did not carry the genuine signatures of the competent authority while some grants were made without there being corresponding documents to indicate that the grantees were displaced persons. Therefore, the State Government had directed the cancellation of such grants in terms of its directions dated 08.02.2018 and an investigation team was constituted in terms of the order dated 18.02.2019. He contended that the investigation team and the Assistant Commissioner met on 12.03.2019 and 27.04.2019, where they decided to re-verify the genuineness/authenticity of all grants made from 01.01.2015 till that date. Therefore, they had resolved that till conclusion of such investigation, appropriate entries shall be made in the revenue records that the same are stayed pending enquiry. He stated that the State Government appointed a Committee of enquiry in terms of

¶34

¶35

an order dated 06.02.2020. The Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue was appointed as an Enquiry Officer who was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months. He stated that proceedings of the enquiry was held which however was delayed due to Covid-19 pandemic. He contended that the Government Order dated 06.06.2020 was modified by Government Order dated 01.09.2021 giving a definite mandate to enquire into grants made from the year 2005 and prescribing time line for conclusion and also providing additional staff to the enquiry officer. He submitted that the enquiry would now be concluded within six months. He further stated that this Court has taken note of the proceedings in W.P.No.6946/2021 and has granted time to conclude the proceedings. He stated that the said order was followed in W.P.No.14122/2021 and a series of writ petitions. He submitted that entertaining these petitions would result in stalling the enquiry and prayed to dismiss these writ petitions.

¶36

¶37

5. I have considered the contentions of the

¶38

petitioners and the State Government.

¶39

The averments in this writ petition disclose

¶40

that the land of the petitioner was acquired for the irrigation project and that he was granted alternate land and that he had paid the fees fixed for effecting phodi and durasth of the granted land. The details of the land granted to the petitioner is recorded in the following table for easy reference:

¶41

Sl. No.	Project	Land Acquired	Alternate Land Allotted	Govern ment Order
1	Yagachi	Sy.Nos.48/1, 48/2, 250/1, 250/2, 251/1 and 267/3 of Karagada	8 acres in Sy.No.13 of Devalapura Village	YA.BOO. MA(DA) 135/ 13-14

¶42

As is evident from the statement of objections

¶43

filed, the State Government had identified land belonging to it for granting alternate land to the persons displaced by the project. The State Government is bound to have clear statistics of the land acquired for the project, the details of

¶44

¶45

the occupant of such land. Therefore, it is bound to also know the extent of land to be allotted as an alternate land. If it is of the opinion that these are glaring irregularities/illegalities in the grant of alternate land, it has to definitely undo the same. However, in the process, those displaced persons who are lawfully granted alternate land cannot be harassed. If the enquiry officer finds that the petitioner is displaced person and that there is some irregularity in the manner of grant of alternate land, such as the grant not being processed through proper channel, then such grants shall not be disturbed. However, the concerned officials responsible for such irregularity may be proceeded against. In so far as those grants which are perse illegal such as those made to those persons who are not displaced by the project or to members belonging to the same family, the enquiry officer is at liberty to suggest remedial measures including cancellation of such grants and to proceed against all officials concerned.

¶46

¶47

In so far as the petitioner in the present writ

¶48

petition is concerned, though it is seen that there are corresponding grant orders, yet that has to be scrutinized by the enquiry officer to check whether they were irregular or illegal. The petitioner is entitled to submit all his documents to establish the genuinity of the grant in his favour. This enquiry cannot be an unending ordeal and the enquiry officer shall decide every case on its merits and if the grant is genuine, then to issue appropriate interim directions to the concerned revenue officials to remove the entry made in Column No.11 of the RTC. If such interim directions are issued, then the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the petition shall implement the same within 30 days from the date of such directions. Till the aforesaid exercise is concluded, the possession of the petitioner in the lands granted to him, as stated in the table above, shall not be disturbed. The enquiry officer shall submit a final report to the State Government within a period of six months as specified in the Government Order dated 01.09.2021.

¶49

¶50

This writ petition is disposed off on the above

¶51

terms.

¶52

In view of the disposal of this writ petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and the same is rejected.

¶53

The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

NBM

K M Malleshgowda v. state of karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K M Malleshgowda v. state of karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. L Ramachandra Vs Sri. O K Harikumar

Mr Gabriel Gnanadas Vs the Karnataka Central Diocese

Sri C R Vishwanatha Vs the State of Karnataka

S Elumalai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. K. N. Chandrika Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Siddesh Y S Vs State of Karnataka