Dismissed¶93

Sri T H Shivakumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2025WP/3093/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BWSSB; Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board; landloser employment; land acquisition 1964 notifications; outsourced agency manpower; mandamus; Article 226; Article 227; writ petition dismissed; representations not considered; no right to appointment; Thore Kadanahalli village; Halagur Hobli; Malavalli Taluk; Mandya District; Water Treatment Plant; R. Nataraj; Karnataka High Court 2025.

What did the court decide?

There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 had ever assured that the landlosers or their family members would be given any employment under the State. ¶91

Sri T H Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶93

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing the respondent authorities to consider the various representations submitted by the petitioners and provide suitable employment to them. +1 more

¶79

Court's answer

The respondents taking services of employees from outsourced agencies does not confer any right on the petitioners to compel respondent No.1 to enroll them as employees of the water supply and sewage board; therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners.

¶92

Ratio / Principle

There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 had ever assured that the landlosers or their family members would be given any employment under the State.

¶91

Key takeaways

The predecessors of the petitioners have not asserted any right from the year 1964 till date.ratio¶91

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Landloser-employment claim rejected — Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj, J.), Writ Petition No. 3093 of 2025 (S-RES), decided 19.03.2025. Forty-six residents of Thore Kadanahalli village (Halagur Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District), claiming to be descendants of owners of lands acquired in 1964 (notifications dated 28.01.1964 and 27.07.1964) for a Travellers bungalow and Quarters, later used for a Water Treatment Plant by BWSSB, sought a mandamus directing the State and Board authorities to consider their representations (dated 18.01.2025 and 20.01.2025) and provide them employment in preference to manpower supplied by outsourced agencies. Held: (i) nothing on record showed any assurance that landlosers or their families would be given employment under the State, and the predecessors never asserted any such right from 1964 till date; (ii) the respondents' engagement of employees through outsourced agencies conferred no right on the petitioners to compel enrollment as Board employees; consequently no direction could be issued. Writ petition dismissed as lacking merit. The Additional Government Advocate was permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3093 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. T H SHIVAKUMAR S/O HONNAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶8

SRI. GOVINDARAJ T R S/O T V RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶9

SRI. ARUNKUMAR S/O LATE PUTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶10

SRI. SHYAM S/O CHIKKAMUNIAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. KUMAR A S/O ANKAIAH @ THAGADAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶13

SRI. MANOJKUMAR T M S/O MUNIAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶14

SRI. RANJIITH S S/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶15

SRI. AKASH T M S/O MARISWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶16

SRI. GIRISH T D S/O LATE NAGARAJU @ DEVADAS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶18

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶19

SRI. LOKESH T N S/O TIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶20

SRI. T R PRADEEP S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶21

SRI. KIRAN KUMAR S/O KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶22

SRI. RAGHU M N S/O LATE NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶23

SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH T K S/O KALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶24

SRI. SUNIL KUMAR T S S/O SHIVARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶25

SRI. KEMPARAJU S/O GOOLAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶26

SRI. SIDDALINGA S/O MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶27

SRI. YOGESH M S/O MUTHURAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶28

SRI. PRAVEEN S/O SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶29

SRI. SHASHANK B S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶31

S. VEDASHREE D/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶32

SRI. MANOHAR K N S/O LATE NAGARAJAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶33

SRI. CHINNAPPA D A S/O ARASARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶34

SRI. MANOJ M S/O MAHADEV AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶35

SRI. SHIVARAM S/O LAKSHMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶36

SMT. SHILPA W/O SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶37

SMT. YASODAMMA W/O LATE DORAISWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶38

SRI. GOPAL T S S/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶39

SRI. PRADEEP T R S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶40

SRI. NUTAN KUMAR T M S/O MUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶41

SRI. KEERTHANA S/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶42

SMT. NAGARATHNA T C D/O LATE CHIKKANNA

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶44

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶45

SMT. KAVITHA J N W/O UMESH T R AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶46

SRI. V LIKITH S/O VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶47

SRI. MAHADEVA PRASAD S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶48

SRI. YASHWANTH S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶49

SRI. VIJAY T D S/O DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶50

SRI. VIKAS S M S/O MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶51

SRI. RAMESH T S/O LATE C T THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶52

SRI. KARTHIK M S S/O LATE SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶53

SRI. RAMESH H N S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶54

SRI. PRATHAP T L S/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶55

SRI. HOMBALAIAH M S/O DODDA HIDAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶57

SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR P S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶58

SRI. ABHISHEK T N S/O NARAYANA T K AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶59

SRI. RAJESH T M S/O MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶60

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT THORE KADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HALAGUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421.

¶61

…PETITIONERS

¶62

(BY SRI. SHUBHANKAR C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶63

AND:

¶64

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶65

THE PRESIDENT BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD

¶66

BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶67

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND SECRETARY BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD

¶68

BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶69

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY-I BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶70

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶71

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY-I MAINTENANCE AND WORK BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD THORE KADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HALAGUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421.

¶72

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY-I BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD THORE KADANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST HALAGUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 421.

¶73

…RESPONDENTS

¶74

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶75

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS TO PRESIDENT, BWSSB ANNEXURE-D TO D45, DATED 18.01.2025 AND 20.01.2025 AND ETC.,

¶76

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

¶77

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶78

ORAL ORDER

¶79

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to consider the various representations submitted by them and provide suitable employment to them.

¶80

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶82

The petitioners claim to be the children and grandchildren of the owners of lands, which were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of establishment of Water Treatment Plant by the respondent–Board. They contend that the respondent–Authorities have availed the services of outsourced agencies for supply of labourers and man power for implementation of certain water scheme. Therefore, they submitted representations requesting respondents to provide them employment instead of taking employees from outsourced agencies. They contend that their representations are not considered and the respondents continue to avail the services from outsourced agencies for man power. Therefore, they are before this Court seeking for direction to consider their representations.

¶83

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondents have availed the services of employees from outsourced agencies and these petitioners are unemployed youth in the village and they are entitled to be considered for employment by the respondents either on part time basis or from outsourced basis.

¶84

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶86

The petition is opposed by the learned Additional Government Advocate who contended that there was no scheme in the year 1964 when the lands were acquired to provide employment to the landlosers. He also contends that many of these petitioners were not even born when the lands were acquired by the respondents in the year 1964 and he also contends that the petitioners do not have any right to compel the respondents to consider their case for appointment either on contract basis or as outsourced employees. Therefore, he submits that no directions can be issued to the respondents to consider their representations.

¶87

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶88

counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶89

The petitioners have claimed that the lands of their predecessors were acquired by the State Government in terms of the notifications dated 28.01.1964 and 27.07.1964 for public purpose namely, for establishment of Travellers bungalow and Quarters at Thore Kadanahalli. The predecessors of the petitioners have all received the compensation in respect of

¶90

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11454 WP No. 3093 of 2025

¶91

acquisition of their lands. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 had ever assured that the landlosers or their family members would be given any employment under the State. The predecessors of the petitioners have not asserted any right from the year 1964 till date. However, the petitioners, who claim that the respondents have been requisitioning the services of the employees from outsourced agencies, contend that instead of taking the employees from outsourced agencies, their services could be taken. The petitioners are not sure about the basis of making such a claim.

¶92

The respondents have taken services of employees from outsourced agencies. However, that does not confer any right for the petitioners to compel the respondent No.1 to enroll them as employees of the water supply and sewage board. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners.

¶93