Sri. Ramegowda Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT-SLAO, IN CASE BEARING L.N.D NO./HEJAYO(DA) 158/2017-18 DTD. 26.08.2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND CASE BEARING L.N.D NO./HEJAYO(DA) 238/2017-18 DTD. 29.08.2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents.

¶37

The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case bearing L.N.D.No./HEJAYO(DA):158/2017-18 dated 26.08.2022 at Annexure-C and in case bearing L.N.D.No.HEJAYO(DA): 238/2017-18, dated 29.08.2022 at Annexure-D, respectively.

¶38

Petitioner No.1 claims to be the legal representative of late Sanjeeve Gowda and petitioner No.2 claims to be the legal representative of late Lakkegowda who have lost lands due to submergence of lands under water on the construction of Hemavati/Yagachi/Vatehole Reservoir Project.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

In terms of the scheme proposed by the State

¶43

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

¶44

lands to ensure that the livelihood of such agriculturists are not lost. Accordingly, 4.00 Acres of land in Block No.3 in Sy.No.52 of Beejamaranahalli, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk and another extent of 4.00 Acres of land in Block No.2 in Sy.No.52 of Beejamaranahalli, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk were granted in favour of the respective grantees/petitioners herein. However, several irregularities were 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 orders in respect of the petitioners cancelling the grants on the ground that the petitioners did not obtain ‘No Objection Certificates’ for having paid the price of the malki/standing trees.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Having regard to the ground on which the

¶48

impugned orders have been passed, learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 11 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1969’, for short). Learned Counsel submits that whenever lands are granted under the provisions of the Rules, 1969, the manner in which the trees grown on the granted lands have been disposed is provided for in the said provision. Learned Counsel submits that sub-rule (1) provides that the authorities of the Forest Department have to value all the trees standing on the granted lands. Sub-rule (2) provides that wherever the value of the trees so assessed is not more than Rs.5,000/- in cases of other cultivable lands,

¶49

the grantee should be given the option of paying the estimated price; the time to be stipulated by the granting authority and accordingly the trees shall be sold to the grantee. It provides that if the grantee once agrees to pay the value of the trees and defaults to pay the same, it may

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

occasion cancellation of the grant. If the grantee is not willing to pay the value of the trees assessed by the Forest Department, the trees shall be disposed of by the authorities of the Forest Department by tender-cumauction sale. Sub-rule the trees shall be disposed of by the authorities of 5,000/- the trees shall be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department within one year from the date of the grant of land. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that when admittedly, the value of the standing trees are not assessed in terms of sub-rule (1) and no intimation is given to the petitioners calling upon them to pay the value, there was no occasion for the competent authority to cancel the grants.

¶53

In the present case, it has been pointed out from the impugned order itself that the SLAO has not made any statement regarding assessment on the value of the standing trees; and that the petitioners were called upon to pay the value of the standing trees. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the impugned orders cannot be

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

sustained. There is substance in the submissions of the

¶58

learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶59

Having regard to the express provision contained in Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969, since nothing is found on record to say as to whether the SLAO got fixed the value of the trees at the hands of the authorities of the Forest

¶60

Department and since it is not stated that the petitioners were called upon to pay the value of the standing trees, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders passed by the SLAO canceling the grants cannot be sustained.

¶61

At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State would submit that the matter may be remanded back to the SLAO to enable the SLAO to have the valuation of the standing trees assessed at the hands of the officials of the Forest Department. Further, although the learned Additional Government Advocate

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

seeks to point out from the impugned orders that some observations have been made by the SLAO that relevant records have not been furnished by the petitioners to show whether they are the owners of the land, the extent of land submerged etc., this Court is of the considered opinion that such observations are general in nature, having regard to the fact that the SLAO was called upon to enquire into all the grants and such observations are general observations and would not be applicable to the petitioners. The factual information and the ground on which the impugned order of cancellation has been passed by the SLAO is the non-payment of the observations made

¶65

in the impugned order are hereby set aside as not specifically applicable to the petitioners. It is also a fact that the impugned order of cancellation was passed without hearing the grantees and therefore, on the ground

¶66

of denial of principles of natural justice alone, the impugned order of cancellation is required to be set aside.

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

However, accepting the submission of the learned

¶71

Additional Government Advocate that an opportunity should be given to the SLAO to have the valuation of the standing trees made at the hands of the competent authority and inform the petitioners regarding the value of the trees and call upon them to pay the same in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules 1969, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

i) Writ petition is allowed in part .

¶74

ii) Both the impugned orders passed by the

¶75

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case bearing L.N.D.No./HEJAYO(DA):158/2017-18 dated

¶76

26.08.2022 at Annexure-C and in case bearing L.N.D.No.HEJAYO(DA):238/2017-18, dated

¶77

29.08.2022 at Annexure-D are hereby quashed

¶78

and set aside.

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:38202 WP No. 27263 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

iii) The matter stands remanded back to the

¶83

SLAO to have the value of the standing trees in

¶84

the granted competent authority. Thereafter information shall be provided to the petitioners in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969, if the value is to be paid by the petitioners.

¶85

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.

¶86

v) At any rate, the SLAO shall keep the petitioners informed of his decision having regard to the provisions contained in sub-rule

¶87

(2) and sub-rule(3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969.

¶88