Partly allowed

Niveditha K S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/24919/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A land grant made as rehabilitation under the Hemavathy Reservoir Project was cancelled by the Special Land Acquisition Officer without hearing the grantee. Relying on an identical co-ordinate bench decision, the court quashed the cancellation, restored revenue entries in the RTC, and remanded the matter to the SLAO to reconsider after a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order quashed; grant restored with RTC entries; matter remanded to SLAO for fresh hearing; alternate land if found to be forest land.

Niveditha K S Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37704 WP No. 24919 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 24919 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NIVEDITHA K.S, W/O ARUNKUMAR. K.N, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O KOTAVALU VILLAGE, RAMNATHAPUR HOBLI, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H.C, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER FOR REHABILITATION AND SETTLEMENT AND EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37704 WP No. 24919 of 2024

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHY RESERVOIR PROJECT AND REHABILITATION, D.C. OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶17

THE POLICE INSPECTOR, D.C.R.B. DIVISION, HASSAN,

¶18

(CEN CRIME POLICE), HASSAN - 573 201.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER DATED BEARING NO. LND/HE.JAY.YO (DAA)/231/2017-2018 DATED 25/08/2022, WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-G, PASSED BY THE R4 HEREIN AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶26

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:37704 WP No. 24919 of 2024

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.08.2022, passed by respondent No.4/SLAO vide Annexures - G canceling the grant order made in favour of petitioner.

¶33

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

¶34

The petitioner claims that the respondents have acquired his land for the purpose of the Hemavathy Reservoir Project and therefore, an application was submitted by the petitioner seeking grant of alternate land, which is considered by the authority and accordingly granted four acres of land in Sy.No.53, Kantenahally village, Konnoor Hobli, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the grant. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is in gross

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:37704 WP No. 24919 of 2024

¶36

violation of principles of natural justice. The cancellation of the grant by the SLAO on the premise that it is a fraudulent grant is dealt by the co-ordinate bench in W.P.3381/2024. Para Nos.3 and 4 would be relevant and

¶37

the same are extracted, which read as under;

¶38

"3. Having regard to the ground on which the impugned order has been passed, it is clear that the SLAO has cancelled the grant on one of the following grounds:

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

4. The factual information and the ground on which the impugned order of cancellation has been passed by the SLAO is identifiable as one of the grounds noticed hereinabove. 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."

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37704 WP No. 24919 of 2024

¶45

In the light of judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in an identical set of facts, in the present case this Court has noticed that respondent No.4 has unilaterally cancelled the grant without affording opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable; accordingly, this court passed the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Writ petition is allowed in part;

¶48

ii. The impugned order 25.08.2022 as per Annexure G passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶49

iii. The matter stands remanded back to the SLAO to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to submit any material to defend the order of grant;

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37704 WP No. 24919 of 2024

¶51

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, the SLAO 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 alternative lands shall be granted to the petitioner;

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Niveditha K S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niveditha K S 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mopirappa Vs Government of Karnataka

V. T. Poornesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttathayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P Nagaraj S/O Late Puttachar Vs Sri P Nagaraj

K G Pillamadappa Vs Chikka Nanjundappa

Smt. Thimmakka Vs Sri. Girish