Allowed

Smt Virajamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 May 2024WP/1502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A legal heir granted alternative lands after submergence under the Hemavathi reservoir challenged cancellation of her grant. The High Court found she had paid the Forest Department's assessed tree value and receipt was issued, so the cancellation order was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.08.2022 quashed; grant restored and revenue entries in RTC directed to be restored.

Smt Virajamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:18085 WP No. 1502 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.1502 OF 2023 (KLR-LG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶8

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SMT. VIRAJAMMA W/O LATE U.S. MALLAPPA AGED 70 YEARS R/O HEDDURGA VILLAGE PALYA HOBALI, ALUR TALUKA HASANA DIST.

¶10

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

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT 573214.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR ALUR TALUK

¶16

HASSAN DISTRICT 573115.

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTITION OFFICER FOR HEMAVATI RESERVOIR PROJECT HASANA 573214.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT 573214.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:18085 WP No. 1502 of 2023

¶21

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LANDS HASSAN DIST 573201.

¶22

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN 573201.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SESHU.V, HCGP)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH NO.L.N.D./YABHOOMA(DA)60/98-9 DTD 29.08.2022 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-F AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR 'BEING SPOKEN TO', THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan in case No.L.N.D/YABHOOMA(DA)60/98-99 dated 29.08.2022.

¶30

The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of Smt.Ningamma, who lost her lands due to submergence of her lands under water on the construction of Hemavathi/Yagachi/Vathole Reservoir. In terms of the scheme proposed by the State Government, a person who lost land on

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18085 WP No. 1502 of 2023

¶32

account of submergence for the project, would not only be entitled for compensation but also entitled for grant of alternative lands to ensure that the livelihood of such agriculturists are not lost. Accordingly, 1 acre and 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.81 of Heddurga village, 1 acre and 05 guntas of land in Block No.I of Sy.N.8 of Thippapura village, 10 guntas of land in Block No.I in Sy.No.1 and another 1.00 acre of land in Block No.II of Sy.No.1 of Dindagatta village, all situated at Palya Hobli, Aluru Taluk (in total 4.00 acres) was granted, in favour of the petitioner. However, several irregularities were found in the matter of allotment of alternative lands. Action was directed by the State Government having regard to such irregularities. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) has passed the impugned order in respect of the petitioner cancelling the grant on the ground that she did not obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ for having paid the price of the malki/standing trees.

¶33

Having regard to the ground on which the order has been passed, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 11 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Learned Counsel submits that whenever lands are

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18085 WP No. 1502 of 2023

¶35

granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969, the manner in which the trees grown on the granted lands have been disposed is provided for in the said provision. Learned Counsel submits that Sub-Rule (1) provides that the authorities of the Forest Department have to value all the trees standing on the granted lands. Sub-Rule (2) provides that wherever the value of the trees so assessed is not more than Rs.5,000/- in cases of other cultivable lands, the grantee should be given the option of paying the estimated price; the time to be stipulated by the granting authority and accordingly the trees shall be sold to the grantee. It provides that if the grantee once agrees to pay the value of the trees and defaults to pay the same, it may occasion cancellation of the grant. If the grantee is not willing to pay the value of the trees assessed by the Forest Department, the trees shall be disposed of by the authorities of the Forest Department by tender-cum-auction sale. Sub-rule (3) provides that if the value is more than Rs.5,000/- the trees shall be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department within one year from the date of the grant of land.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:18085 WP No. 1502 of 2023

¶38

However, in the present case, the Deputy Conservator of Forest had assessed the values of the standing trees and issued an Official Memorandum on 31.07.2015 calling upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,982 /- as the value of the standing trees in the granted land. Accordingly, the said amount was paid by a Demand Draft dated 17.11.2015 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Belur, in favour of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hassan. Thereupon a receipt was also issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, as could be seen at Annexure-B2. Having regard to the said information, it is clear that the SLAO, has not looked into the records.

¶39

In the orders passed by this Court in respect of several other such cases, where the competent authority had not valued the trees and no information was given to the grantees, this Court had remanded the matter back to the SLAO for reconsideration. However, in the present case, it is clear that the value of the trees was fixed, the petitioner has paid the value and therefore, the impugned order passed by the SLAO cannot be sustained.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:18085 WP No. 1502 of 2023

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned order No.L.N.D/YABHOOMA(DA)60/98-99 dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure ‘F’. Consequent to the restoration of the grant in favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries shall also be restored in the RTC.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Smt Virajamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Virajamma 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 M Nanjunde Gowda Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies

Maimuna, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Philomina Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt T a Jagadamba Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mrs. Geeta Sanjay Vhatkar Vs the Joint Commissioner (Mahadevapura Zone)

M/S Sansita Holdings Private Limited Vs Ms Shobha Rathnam