Partly allowed

Sri Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2024WP/22368/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land grant cancelled by SLAO for non-payment of tree value was quashed on parity with an identical Co-ordinate Bench decision, since no valuation was fixed and no hearing preceded cancellation; matter remanded to SLAO to assess tree value under Rule 11 and restore revenue entries.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order quashed; grant restored; RTC entries restored; matter remanded to SLAO to assess tree value per Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969.

Sri Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.22368 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SRI.BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF VADARU VILLAGE KUNIGANAHALLI POST SAKALESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.M J ALVA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶20

DC OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN - 573 201

¶21

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPUR SUB DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR SAKALESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115

¶23

THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS SAKALESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115

¶24

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN - 570 201

¶25

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CEN CRIME POLICE DCRB DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.LND/HRP(D)/1293/17-18 DTD 30.07.2022 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT, HASSAN/R-3 CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶35

The petitioner is assailing the order passed by respondent No.3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner's father on the premises that the value of the trees is not deposited by the petitioner's father.

¶36

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AGA. Perused the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case.

¶37

Having examined the materials on record, it is evident that respondent No.3 has cancelled the grant order on the premises that the father of the petitioner has failed to make a payment of the trees standing in the land granted to the petitioner. The cancellation of the grant on

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶40

the ground that the value of the trees is not deposited by the Grantee is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.6200/2023. Para Nos.6 to 8 would be relevant

¶41

and the same are extracted, which read as under;

¶42

"6. Having regard to the express provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969, since nothing is found on record to say as to whether the SLAO got fixed the value of the trees at the hands of the authorities of the Forest Department and since it is not stated that the petitioner was called upon to pay the value of the standing trees, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the SLAO cancelling the grant cannot be sustained.

¶43

7. At this juncture, the learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would submit that the matter may be remanded back to the SLAO to enable the SLAO to have the valuation of the standing trees assessed at the hands of the officials of the Forest Department. Further, although the learned AGA seeks to point out from the impugned order that some observations have been made by the SLAO that relevant records have not been furnished by the

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶46

petitioner to show whether he is the owner of the land, the extent of land submerged etc., this Court is of the considered opinion that such observations are general in nature, having regard to the fact that the SLAO was called upon to enquire into all the grants and such observations are general observations and would not be applicable to the petitioner. The factual information and the ground on which the impugned order of cancellation has been passed by the SLAO is the non-payment of the value of the standing trees. Therefore, all other observations made in the impugned order are hereby set aside as not specifically applicable to the petitioner. It is also a fact that the impugned order of cancellation was passed without hearing the grantee and therefore, on the ground of denial of principles of natural justice alone, the impugned order of cancellation is required to be set aside.

¶47

8. However, accepting the submission of the learned AGA that an opportunity should be given to the SLAO to have the valuation of the standing trees made at the hands of the competent authority and inform the petitioner

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶49

regarding the value of the trees and call upon him to pay the same in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules 1969."

¶50

On examining the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case, this Court is of the view that the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench while setting aside the cancellation of the grant is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. In the case on hand, the impugned order is not preceded by an enquiry. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical set of facts, the petitioner in the present case is entitled for the relief on the ground of parity. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶53

ii) The impugned order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:35531 WP No. 22368 of 2024

¶56

iii) The matter stands remanded back to the SLAO to have the value of the standing trees in the granted land assessed at the hands of the competent authority. Thereafter information shall be provided to the petitioner in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969, if the value is to be paid by the petitioner.

¶57

iv) On the other hand, if the valuation of the standing trees is more than Rs.5,000/, as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969, then the SLAO shall have the trees removed in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969.

¶58

v) At any rate, the SLAO shall keep the petitioner informed of his decision having regard to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969.

¶59

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

¶60

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶61

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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