Allowed

Sri. Rajgopal. B. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/25528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition quashing an order cancelling a land grant under the Hemavathi Reservoir Project. The court held that cancellation without hearing the petitioner, who was a subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed, violated natural justice, remanding the matter for a proper enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of cancellation is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the SLAO to reconsider after hearing the petitioner.

Sri. Rajgopal. B. M. Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38859 WP No. 25528 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25528 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAJGOPAL B.M, S/O LATE MUNISWAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1277, 8TH CROSS, 1 PHASE, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38859 WP No. 25528 of 2024

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELUR SUB DIVISION, BELUR, HASSAN - 573 127.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, BELUR TALUK, BELUR - 573 115, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶21

SRI. G.S. RAMAPRIYA, S/O G.A. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 1ST STAGE, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R8)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. L.N.D.U.BHOO.MAA.MIS. 16/2006-07 DATED 18/08/2023 IN CANCELING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R2 WITH RESPECT TO SY. NO. 67 (OLD SY. NO. 16) MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRES SITUATED AT BETTADAKESHAVI, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38859 WP No. 25528 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of cancellation of the grant by respondent No.2/authoirty on the premise that the petitioner's vendors were not entitled to seek a grant and the same is secured by fraudulent means. Consequently, the grant made in favour of the petitioner's vendor is now sought to be cancelled under the impugned order vide Annexure-J. The said order is under challenge.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 8.

¶31

This Court has dealt with fraudulent grants pertaining to the Hemavathi Reservior Project. The coordinate bench in W.P.No.12104/2024 has set aside the order of cancellation of grant on the premises that it is not preceded by an enquiry. It would be useful for this Court

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38859 WP No. 25528 of 2024

¶33

to cull out paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment, which

¶34

reads as under:

¶35

"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 : a) Grant was made to a person who had not 'ost any land in submergence;.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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;

¶39

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

¶40

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."

¶41

In the case on hand, the petitioner is a

¶42

subsequent transferee who has purchased the petition

¶43

land under a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2016. The

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38859 WP No. 25528 of 2024

¶45

petitioner contends that his vendor was granted this land on 21.03.1980. Admittedly, respondent No.2 has not verified the revenue records before conducting an enquiry. The petitioner, who claims to be a subsequent transferee, is not served with notice and the order of cancellation by respondent No.2 on the premise that the petitioner's vendor secured the grant by fraudulent means is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, having acquired a valid right under registered sale deed, is entitled to be heard in the matter. His vendor, who has already sold the property, has lost right and therefore, the petitioner's vendor has not responded to the notice and has not appeared before respondent No2/Authority. The impugned order clearly prejudices the petitioner's right acquired under a registered sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to substantiate that his vendor has lost lands in the Hemavathi Reservoir Project. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable. For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:38859 WP No. 25528 of 2024

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶50

ii. The impugned order dated 18.08.2023 as per Annexure J passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer(SLAO), Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶51

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

¶52

iv. The petitioner is also entitled to furnish the details of the lands lost by his vendor and shall also establish that his vendor was eligible to seek grant under the scheme;

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶55

HDK

Sri. Rajgopal. B. M. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rajgopal. B. M. 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

Mrs Uma Hiremath W/O Air Commodore G L Hiremath Vs the Air Marshall

Sri C Venkata Swamy Vs Sri H N Shivanna

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Munivenkatappa

Sri. Bore Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Ganesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Muddurangamma Vs Gangamma