Partly allowed

Smt. K K Halamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/21120/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Special Land Acquisition Officer's cancellation of a land grant. The High Court held the cancellation unsustainable without notice and proper inquiry. The order was quashed, matter remanded for fresh inquiry, and revenue entries directed to be restored.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 15/06/2023 quashed and set-aside; matter remanded for fresh inquiry with notice; revenue entries to be restored.

Smt. K K Halamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.21120 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.K.K.HALAMMA W/O HULIYAPPA GOWDA AGED 67 YEARS R/AT SRIRANGA NILAYA HOUSING BOARD 3^RD STAGE, MIG 2 JYOTHI NAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577102 (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI.YASHWANTH C.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SADASHIVAIAH K G, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION SAKALESHPURA - 573134

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVIOR PROJECT OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISTION DC OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573201

¶19

THE TASHILDAR BELUR TALUK BELUR - 573115

¶20

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE D C R B DIVISION HASSAN C E N CRIME POLICE HASSAN - 573201

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R4 IN CASE NO. L.N.D./YA.BHU.MA(D).46/ 2006-07 DATED 15/06/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned

¶30

order passed by respondent No.4, who has proceeded to

¶31

cancel the grant on the premises that it is a fake grant. The said order is under challenge.

¶32

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶34

The subject matter of the petition is the land

¶35

bearing New Sy. No.22 (Old Sy. No.81) measuring to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas, which was originally granted to one Mallegowda. The petitioner contends that his vendor Mallegowda possessed wet land measuring 23 guntas in Sy. No.72/4. The said land was acquired by respondent No.4 for construction of Hemavati Reservoir Project. The petitioner, who is the transferee, contends that in terms of the scheme proposed by the State Government, his vendor was compensated by allotting the present petition land in 1991.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶38

The short question that falls for consideration

¶39

is as to whether respondent No.4 was justified in canceling

¶40

the grant without notifying the petitioner or his vendor.

¶41

This issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench. The Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7677/2024 has set-aside the orders canceling grant on various grants and the matters are remitted back to respondent No.4 to notify the interested parties and hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders.

¶42

Para No.3 of the said judgment is relevant and

¶43

the same is extracted, which reads as under;

¶44

"3. Having regard to the ground on which

¶45

the impugned order has been passed, it is clear that the SLAO has cancelled the grant on one of the following grounds:

¶46

a) Grant was made to a person who had not lost any land in submergence;

¶47

b) Bogus grant order has been created, although no such grant order was passed;

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶50

c) Dual grant orders have been passed on the basis of one award passed by the SLAO;

¶51

d) Such dual grant orders and fictitious grant orders have been passed during the tenure of Sri.V.Srinivas Gowda or Sri.B.A.Jagadeesh, who were the then Special Land Acquisition Officers;

¶52

e) Land granted is a forest land and not revenue lands and therefore, it could not have been granted."

¶53

In the light of the directions issued by the

¶54

Co-ordinate Bench in an identical set of facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order under challenge is not sustainable. The order of cancellation of grant, primafacie , is not preceded by proper enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable.

¶55

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶56

to pass the following;

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶61

(ii) The impugned order dated 15.06.2023 in case No.L.N.D/Ya.Bhu.Ma (D):46/2006-07 passed by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶62

(iii) The matter stands remanded back to respondent No.4 to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to submit material to defend the order of grant.

¶63

(iv) Insofar as the cancellation orders passed on the ground that the land in question is a forest land and not revenue land and therefore, it could not have been granted, respondent No.4 is required to reconsider the matter after securing the opinion from the Forest Department as well as the Revenue Department. If ultimately it is found that the land is a forest land, then

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:35527 WP No. 21120 of 2024

¶66

alternative lands shall be granted to the petitioner.

¶67

(v) Consequent to the restoration of the grant in favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries shall also be restored in the RTC.

¶68

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶69

NBM

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt. K K Halamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K K Halamma 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 Chowdamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Doddegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Adhinarayan Reddy Vs Department of Revenue

Sri Y R Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shivarudramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekhar Vs State of Karnataka