Allowed

Smt. Manjula H T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024WP/24943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A land grantee under the Hemavathi Reservoir Project challenged the SLAO's cancellation of her grant. The Court held the cancellation was made without enquiry or hearing, violating natural justice, quashed it, remanded for fresh consideration with forest and revenue department opinions, and directed restoration of RTC entries.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order dated 25.08.2022 quashed; matter remanded to SLAO for fresh hearing; restoration of grant and RTC entries; alternative land if forest land.

Smt. Manjula H T Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.24943 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MANJULA H T W/O P L SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O PALYA VILLAGE PALYA HOBLI ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MADHU M T, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶15

MS BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560001

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER FOR REHABILITATION AND SETTLEMENT AND EX OFFICIO SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT

¶19

HASSAN - 573 201

¶20

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

¶21

THE POLICE INSPECTOR D.C.R.B DIVISION HASSAN (CEN CRIME POLICE) HASSAN - 573 201

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR ALUR TALUK HASSAN - 573 201

¶24

THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

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

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT BY WAY OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED BY THE R.4 / SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER IN ORDER BEARING NO.LND/HE.JAY.YO(DA)/172/16-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for

¶32

respondents.

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned

¶34

order dated 25.08.2022 passed by respondent No.4 - Special Land Acquisition Officer as per Annexure-L. By impugned order, respondent No.4 has cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent

¶36

Nos.1 to 8.

¶37

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶38

The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist. The

¶39

petitioner asserts that the respondents acquired lands bearing Sy. Nos.1/3 and 1/4 totally measuring to an

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶42

extent of 2 acres 36 guntas in Shanuboganahalli Village. Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner having reserved the lands measuring 156 acres in Sy. No.1, the petitioner lost lands in Hemavathi Reservoir Project, was granted land in the land bearing Sy. No.1 to an extent of 4 acres.

¶43

Respondent No.4 - Special Deputy

¶44

Commissioner has passed impugned order on the premise that the petitioner is not eligible to secure the land and the land is secured by fraudulent means.

¶45

This issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.27976/2023. The Coordinate Bench, while setting aside the similar cancellation of grant, has held in para Nos.5 to 7 and the same are relevant, which are extracted as under;

¶46

"5. This Court in an identical set of facts was pleased to set aside the order passed by SLAO on the premise that a cancellation of grant is not preceded by an enquiry. The

¶47

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶48

Co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.28307/2023 has held that the reasons assigned by 4^th respondent – SLAO while canceling similar grants are not sustainable. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 would be relevant and the same are culled out as under:

¶49

“ 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:

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶56

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

¶57

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.

¶58

In the light of observation made by the Co-ordinate bench, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment tendered by the Co-ordinate bench is clearly applicable to the present case on hand.

¶59

Both respondent, Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) has proceeded to cancel the grant without holding

¶60

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶61

an enquiry. The order under challenge clearly contradicts the principles of natural justice. This Court on reviewing records has noticed that the impugned order canceling the grant was not preceded by a proper enquiry. This Court has also acknowledges that the 3^rd party rights are created and petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser. The order previously prejudice the petitioner’s valuable rights in the property.

¶62

In the present case on hand, the grant made in favour of the petitioner is unilaterally cancelled by respondent No.4 without notifying the petitioner. The impugned order is not preceeded by proper enquiry and the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's right in immovable property is taken away without a proper enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order canceling the grant is not sustainable.

¶63

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶64

to pass the following;

¶65

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) Writ Petition is allowed .

¶69

ii) The Impugned order dated 25.08.2022 in order No.LND/He.Jay.YO(DA):172/201617 at Annexure-L, is hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶70

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.

¶71

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.

¶72

¶73

NC: 2024:KHC:37614 WP No. 24943 of 2024

¶74

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

¶75

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶76

NBM

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt. Manjula H T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manjula H T 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

Mr M Veeresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Thimmakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrachari Vs Smt Sharadamma

Sri. Ananda Reddy Vs Smt. Radhamma

Muniyappa S v Vs the Commissioner