Mallikarjuna K B Vs the Special Land Acquition Officer

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.LND/HE.JA,YO(DA):99/2017-18 DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11487 WP No. 35535 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶28

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case

¶32

No.L.N.D/He.Ja.Yo(Da):99/2017-18.

¶33

The petitioner claim to be the legal representatives of Sri.Basavaiah, who lost the lands due to submergence of 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 not only

¶34

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 acres of land in Block No.1 of Sy.No.11 of Makkihalli Village, Hanubalu Hobli, Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District were granted. However,

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11487 WP No. 35535 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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 order in respect of the petitioners cancelling the grant.

¶38

Having regard to the ground on which the

¶39

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 not lost any land in submergence;

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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;

¶44

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

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11487 WP No. 35535 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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 petitioners. 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.

¶48

Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶49

following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) Writ petition is allowed in par t.

¶52

ii) The impugned order dated 25.08.2022 in case No.L.N.D/He.Ja.Yo(Da):99/2017-18 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure ‘A’, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶53

iii) The matter stands remanded back to the SLAO

¶54

to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an

¶55

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11487 WP No. 35535 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to submit any material to defend the order of grant.

¶58

iv) Insofar as the cancellation orders passed on

¶59

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 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 petitioners.

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶62

GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Mallikarjuna K B v. the Special Land Acquition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjuna K B v. the Special Land Acquition Officer

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 Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raju, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Chandrashekar N Vs the State of Karnataka

K.V. Manjunath Vs Siddamallaiah

Sri Suresh Tukaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Venkataramanaiah T Vs the State of Karnataka