Sri Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.LND/HE.JA.YO.(D): 2146/17-18 DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT, HASSAN / RESPONDENT NO.3 CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:34783 WP No. 2100 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case No.L.N.D/HE.JA.YO.(DA):2146/2017-18 at Annexure-A.

¶36

The petitioner claims to be a legal representative of Late B.M.Venkategowda, who lost lands due to submergence of his lands under water on the construction of Hemavati/Yagachi/Vatehole Reservoir Project. In terms

¶37

of the scheme proposed by the State Government, a person who lost land on account of submergence for the project, would not only be entitled for compensation but also entitled for grant of alternative lands to ensure that the livelihood of such agriculturists are not lost. Accordingly, 4.00 Acres of land and 06 Guntas of Karab land in Block No.3 of Sy.No.28 of Yadakere Village, Yesaluru Hobli, Sakaleshapura Taluk was granted in favour of the petitioner. However, several irregularities were

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:34783 WP No. 2100 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

found in the matter of allotment of alternative lands. Action was directed by the State Government having regard to such irregularities. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘SLAO’) has passed the impugned order in respect of the grantee/ petitioner cancelling the grant.

¶42

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 :

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

who were the then Special Land Acquisition Officers;

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:34783 WP No. 2100 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

e) Land granted is a forest land and not revenue

¶52

lands and therefore it could not have been granted.

¶53

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.

¶54

Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:34783 WP No. 2100 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i) Writ petition is allowed in part .

¶60

ii) The impugned order dated 24.03.2022 in case No.L.N.D./HE.JA.YO.(DA): 2146/ 2017-18 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶61

iii) The matter stands remanded back to the

¶62

SLAO to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the grantee/petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to submit any material to defend the order of grant.

¶63

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

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34783 WP No. 2100 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

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 grantee/petitioner.

¶67

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

¶68

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶69

DL

¶70

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3.24

Sri Kantharaju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kantharaju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L Doreswamy, Vs the Tahasildar

Smt. Sarojamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Roshma Boban Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R Prakash Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Bogaiah Vs the State of Karnataka