Allowed

Avinash v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/25521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's grant of alternative land under the Hemavathi Reservoir rehabilitation scheme was cancelled by the SLAO without any enquiry. The High Court quashed the cancellation for violation of natural justice and remanded for fresh enquiry, with directions on standing trees and forest-land verification.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; impugned cancellation order dated 02.06.2023 quashed; matter remanded to SLAO for fresh enquiry after hearing; RTC entries to be restored.

Avinash Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.25521 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

AVINASH S/O AMBROJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O SASAMPURA KOPPALU GULLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN - 573 201

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. KAVITHA H C, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE REP BY SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT

¶14

HASSAN - 573201

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHY RESERVOIR PROJECT AND REHABILITATION, D.C. OFFICE BLDG, HASSAN - 573201

¶18

THE POLICE INSPECTOR D.C.R.B. DIVISION, HASSAN (CEN CRIME POLICE) HASSAN - 573201

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN - 573201

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201

¶21

THE ASST DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED BEARING NO.LND/HEJAYO/(1)(N)/48/2006-2007 DTD. 02.06.2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-F PASSED BY THE R-4 HEREIN AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Project, Hassan, in case No.LND/HEJAYO(1)(N):48/2006-07 at Annexure-F.

¶31

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

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that the ancestors of the petitioner lost their lands due to submergence of

¶33

their lands under water on the construction of Hemavati/ Yagachi/Vatehole Reservoir Project. In terms of the scheme proposed by the State Government, a person who lost land on account of submergence for the project, would

¶34

not only entitled for compensation but also entitled for grant of alternative lands to ensure that the livelihood of

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶37

such agriculturists are not lost. Accordingly, 3 guntas of land out of 22-09 acres in Sy. No.15 of Gullahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan was granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

Having examined the materials on record, it is evident that respondent No.4 has cancelled the grant order on the premises that several irregularities were found in the matter of allotment of alternative lands and the cost of trees is not made good by the Grantee, while securing grant. This issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.28307/2023. This Court at para No.3 has held as under;

¶39

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

¶40

a) Grant was made to a person who had

¶41

not lost any land in submergence;

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶44

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

¶45

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;

¶46

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

¶47

6. In the case of on hand, respondent No.4 has not conducted any enquiry. The petitioner’s rights in the immovable properties are seriously prejudiced as the grant made in his favour is unilaterally cancelled, which is admittedly not preceded by any enquiry. The impugned order is clearly found to be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same is not sustainable. The Authorities shall also examine during the course of enquiry as to whether there are standing trees in the granted land.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶50

7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶53

ii) The impugned order dated 02.06.2023 in case No.LND/HEJAYO(1)(N):48/2006-07 passed by respondent No.4 - the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure - F, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

v) Insofar as the cancellation orders passed on the ground that the land in question

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:39078 WP No. 25521 of 2024

¶59

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.

¶60

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

¶61

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶62

NBM

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Avinash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash 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 G R Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Muddurangamma Vs Gangamma

Sri. Srinivasa Babu Vs Smt. Radhamma

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukmini .P.H Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkamma Vs the State of Karnataka