Allowed

Sri K G Lakshminarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/30002/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed. The Court quashed endorsements issued by KSPDCL rejecting petitioners' land inclusion in a Solar Park Project and compensation claims, citing non-application of mind. The Court directed respondents to reconsider the claims and inform petitioners about damage reports or accept furnished reports.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements quashed. Respondents directed to reconsider petitioners' request for land inclusion and compensation claims within three months.

Sri K G Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 30002 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 30002 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI K.G. LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O LATE GUDDAMAIAH, AGE: 55 YEARS, R/AT VENKTAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶7

SRI.K.GOPAL S/O LATE GUDDAMAIAH, AGE: 52 YEARS, R/AT VENKTAMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. SANKET M. YENAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GURURAJ D GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, Location: High VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. Court of Karnataka 2. THE DEPARTMENT OF POWER & ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

THE KARNATAKA SOLAR, POWER DEVELOPMENT, CORPORATION LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK, BEEJARAJA SEED COMPLEX, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶13

¶14

WP No. 30002 of 2018

¶15

KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, NO.39, SHANTHI GRUHA, BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SMT. LATHA S.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.5.2018 ISSUED BY R-3 TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 AT ANNEX-L; QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.5.2018 ISSUED BY R-3 TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 AT ANNEX-M AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging impugned endorsement bearing

¶22

no.KSPDCL/CEO/CFO/Sr.E.O/2018-19/544 dated 12.05.2018 at Annexure-L and M passed by respondent no.3 - Karnataka Solar Power Development Corporation Limited (referred to as 'KSPDCL' for short) and seeking for mandamus directing respondents no.3 and 4 to consider petitioners representations dated 07.05.2018 at Annexure-H, J and K, this writ petition is filed.

¶23

¶24

WP No. 30002 of 2018

¶25

Sri Sanket M. Yenagi, learned counsel for petitioners submits that for establishment of Solar Park Project (for short 'SPP') at Pavagada Taluk, respondent no.3 - KSPDCL had issued notification dated 14.10.2016, notifying various properties. Schedule to said notification also included petitioners' properties. At that time, petitioners were not willing to part their land for establishment of SPP. Thereafter, respondents established SPP without including petitioners land.

¶26

However, due to usage of hazardous materials and high temperature and pollution etc., caused, petitioners were unable to carry out agricultural activities in their land and therefore, submitted representations to respondents agreeing to tender their lands for SPP.

¶27

In representations, petitioners also sought for compensation for damages sustained by them on account of inability to carry out agricultural activities. Without considering same, respondents rejected their request for utilization of land. Insofar as claim for damages, it was stated that after obtaining appropriate report from concerned department, respondents would examine petitioners' claim.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 30002 of 2018

¶30

It was firstly submitted that survey numbers mentioned in impugned endorsement do not pertain to petitioners and therefore, there was non-application of mind. It was further submitted that respondents are neither utilizing petitioners' land for purpose of SPP nor determined/awarded compensation for loss sustained by them. Therefore, interference was called for.

¶31

Smt. Latha S.S., advocate for Sri M.V.Charati, learned counsel for respondent no.3 - KSPDCL filed statement of objections stating that though petitioners land was identified as suitable for implementation of SPP and to implement project, in order to bring consensus among land owners, a meeting was called, in which 95% of other land owners had agreed and made over their land for purpose of SPP. But, petitioners did not come forward to execute lease deed. It was also stated that even revenue records were also not got rectified. Therefore, respondent authorities had to re-align project layout by excluding land of petitioners. Therefore reasons stated for rejecting petitioners request were valid and did not call for interference.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 30002 of 2018

¶34

Sri V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government

¶35

Pleader appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 would support endorsement.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for parties, perused

¶37

impugned endorsement and records.

¶38

On perusal of impugned endorsement, it is seen that there is no consideration of petitioners' request for inclusion of their land for SPP. Insofar as petitioners' request for damages, though it is mentioned that report would be obtained from concerned department, there is no reference to any such report and consideration of petitioners request for damages, in statement of objections. On bare perusal, survey numbers of lands mentioned in endorsement do not pertain to petitioners. This would indicate that non-application of mind by respondents. Hence, impugned endorsements would call for interference.

¶39

Consequently, following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 30002 of 2018

¶44

ii. Impugned endorsements bearing no.KSPDCL/CEO/CFO/Sr.E.O/2018-19/54 dated 12.05.2018 at Annexure - L and M issued by respondent no.3 - KSPDCL are quashed.

¶45

iii. Respondents are directed to consider petitioners' request for inclusion of their land in SPP, if there is a proposal for fresh projects or scope for inclusion in earlier project by giving detailed reasons.

¶46

iv. Insofar as damages, respondents shall inform petitioners about report obtained from concerned department, if any, and thereafter hear petitioners and pass appropriate orders.

¶47

v. Petitioners are also at liberty to obtain any such report or material in support of their claim for damages and furnish same to respondents within period of four weeks from today, which shall be in addition to representations already submitted.

¶48

vi. Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months in accordance with law and taking note of observations made herein above.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

GRD

Sri K G Lakshminarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K G Lakshminarayana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meharunnisa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Punjab National Bank

The SBI General Insurance Vs Insurance Ombudsman

Chetan Travels Vs Deputy Director

Sri. Sreenivasaiah v Vs Smt. Susheela

Shree Chitralingeshwara Swamy Vidya Samsthe Vs State of Karnataka