Sri. Nanjegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: PÀAE 49 ¨sÀÆ¸ÁéºÁ 2018 DATED 01.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 - HIGH POWER COMMITTEE DATED 23.03.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶67

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

¶68

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶69

ORAL ORDER

¶70

The petitioners have called in question the order bearing

¶71

No.PÀAE 49 ¨sÀÆ¸ÁéºÁ 2018 dated 01.07.2020 issued by the

¶72

6 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

respondent No.1 and also the proceedings conducted by High Power Committee dated 23.03.2020.

¶76

(i) The petitioners are all residents of

¶77

Thyavadahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. They contend that on account of the construction of the Hemavathi Reservoir Project (Right Main Canal), which supplies water for irrigation purposes, Thyavadahalli was declared as a 'seepage affected village'. It is also contended that the adjacent villages were similarly declared as 'seepage affected villages' and had already received compensation. The petitioners gave representations requesting the respondents to acquire their lands and grant compensation.

¶78

(ii) An inspection was conducted on 29.07.2005 by a joint committee comprised of the Deputy Commissioner, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer which reported that Thyavadahalli was affected by seepage of water. Subsequently, another inspection was conducted on 27.02.2006, which too was of the same view. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer namely, respondent No.2 submitted his report dated 28.01.2009 to the

¶79

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Executive Engineer stating that the entire Thyavadahalli was affected by seepage water and that 119 houses and 27 vacant sites were affected. Respondent No.2 requested the Deputy Commissioner to issue a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1894' for short). The Assistant Executive Engineer prepared a report stating that Thyavadahalli was affected by seepage water. Thereafter, respondent No.5 issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. However, the said proceedings did not culminate in a final notification to acquire the land. The petitioners thus submitted representations to the respondents seeking acquisition of their lands.

¶82

(iii) An inspection was thereafter conducted on 20.03.2009 and the committee was also satisfied that the village was affected by seepage of water and that the entire village be rehabilitated. Thereafter, contrarily on 24.11.2012, respondent No.1 passed an order stating that there is no seepage in Thyavadahalli and that there is no need to frame any rehabilitation programme. The said order was challenged by similarly placed persons and was quashed by this Court in

¶83

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

terms of an order dated 21.08.2018 in W.P. Nos.35032/2018 and 35270 to 35294/2018 and the respondents therein were directed to pass fresh orders. It is contended that the respondents did not pass any order. Following this, a contempt petition in CCC No.1770/2019 was filed. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents have passed the impugned order holding that Thyavadahalli Village was not affected by seepage. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the aforesaid order.

¶86

(i) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶87

that the committee had inspected the village on 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009 and in all the three inspections, it was found that Thyavadahalli was affected by seepage. He contends that the respondent No.1 has now passed the impugned order holding that Thyavadahalli is not affected by seepage and at the same time, has recommended the formation of seepage drains and drainage throughout the village, plastering of houses constructed using mud and to lay cement concrete roads and cement concrete drains. He thus, contends that respondent No.1 has tacitly accepted water

¶88

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

seepage in the village. However, by treating the village as not being affected by seepage, the respondents have denied the benefit of rehabilitation to the petitioners. He therefore contends that the impugned order is liable to be quashed, as the same is contrary to the inspection reports dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009.

¶91

(ii) Besides this he contends that in similar circumstances, another set of residents of Thyavadahalli Village had challenged the impugned order in W.P. No.2830/2022 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the same and directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the inspection reports dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009 and complete the exercise within a period six months. He therefore contends that the issues raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.2830/2022 and prays that this petition may also be disposed on similar terms.

¶92

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 however, contended that there is no seepage in Thyavadahalli

¶93

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

which is evident from the inspection conducted on 24.11.2012. He invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 and submitted that the earlier inspection reports dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009 were considered and respondent No.1 was of the opinion that there is no seepage. He further contends that the houses affected by seepage have to be inspected on a case to case basis and only such houses should be rehabilitated and that there can be no general order directing rehabilitation of the entire village. He also submits that instead of quashing the impugned order, a fresh inspection may be ordered to be conducted.

¶96

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶97

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶98

The respondent No.1 in terms of the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 held that at the meeting held by the Regional Commissioner on 23.03.2020 it was decided that Thyavadahalli is not a village affected by seepage. However, the Regional Commissioner has recommended the following works to be done in Thyavadahalli:

¶99

11 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

� UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¹Ã¥ÉÃeï qÉæöÊ£ï ¤«Äð¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVzÉ. � UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è §¹UÁ®ÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶103

� Hj£À M¼À¨sÁUÀzÀ°è FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¤ªÀiÁðt ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¹ªÉÄAmï PÁAQæmï gÀ¸ÉÛ ºÁUÀÆ ZÀgÀAr ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ G½zÀ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¹ªÉÄAmï PÁAQæmï gÀ¸ÉÛ ºÁUÀÆ ¹ªÉÄAmï PÁAQæmï ZÀgÀAr ¤«Äð¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶104

These remedial measures signify that Thyavadahalli is a seepage affected village and allowing citizens to live in this village would be danger to their lives and limb.

¶105

It therefore follows that the petitioners are entitled to be rehabilitated. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.2830/2022 while considering the very same order impugned in this writ petition, held as follows:

¶106

"9. This Court directed the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioners' representation in accordance with law in view of the reports already submitted by the respective Committees. The Division Bench in W.A.no.1769/2012 and connected matters, observed that the earlier reports

¶107

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

recommended for shifting the Village which was accepted by the Government and having accepted such reports there was no necessity for the Government to appoint a fresh new High Power Committee to go into the details of the same village. The constitution of a new High Power Committee in the year 2019 and 2020 was another arbitrary action on part on the respondent-State, which this Court had categorically observed that in view of the earlier reports there was no necessity for the Government for having appointing new High Power Committee to got into the details of the said Village.

¶110

The authority has totally disregarded the multiple directions of this Court including decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected matters, wherein it is specifically stated that the formation of fresh committee is unwarranted fertile and legally impersmissible, the manner in which the respondent- State proceeding in this matter, by appointing another new committee is highly arbitrary and the same has been done by ignoring the three earlier inspection reports, 4(1) notification and the binding prior decision of this Court. The impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind, jurisdictional error, and violation of judicial discipline. The petitioners have demonstrated to this Court that the adjacent seepage affected villages were rehabilitated and the State has offered no

¶111

13 -

¶112

NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

rational to distinguish the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶115

ORDER

¶116

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶117

ii. The impugned order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure- A) and also proceedings conducted by the High Power Committee dated 23.03.2020

¶118

(Annexure-B) are hereby quashed.

¶119

iii. The decisions of the High Power Committee constituted in 2019-2020 is without any judicial mandate, and its conclusion which cannot override the earlier reports, 4(1) notification address by the SLAO and the earlier decision of this Court.

¶120

iv. The respondents shall reconsider the petitioners’ representation strictly in accordance with the earlier three Committee dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009, 4(1) notification and the earlier directions of this Court in W.P.No.35032/2018 and connected matters and W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected matters and shall not consider the High Power Committee proceedings or order dated 23.03.2020.

¶121

14 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

v. The entire exercise shall be complete within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶125

vi. Since the earlier reports disclose the petitioners houses are seepage affected, the respondents shall initiate rehabilitation and compensation in accordance with law, without constituting any fresh committee."

¶126

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the

¶127

order dated 01.07.2020 passed by respondent No.1 and also the proceedings conducted by the High Power Committee dated 23.03.2020 and directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the report of the three committees dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 and the earlier directions of this Court in W.P. No. 35032/2018 and connected petitions and W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected appeals. The respondents were also directed to initiate rehabilitation and compensate the petitioners therein in accordance with law, without constituting any fresh committee.

¶128

15 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

Since the issue in this writ petition is covered on all fours by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.2830/2022, the petitioners are also entitled to be treated alike.

¶132

Consequently, the following order is passed:

¶133

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶134

ii. The impugned order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure- A) and also proceedings conducted by the High Power Committee dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure-B) are hereby quashed.

¶135

iii. The decisions of the High Power Committee constituted in 2019-2020 is without any judicial mandate, and its conclusion which cannot override the earlier reports, 4(1) notification address by the SLAO and the earlier decision of this Court.

¶136

iv. The respondents shall reconsider the petitioners’ representation strictly in accordance with the earlier three Committee dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009, 4(1)

¶137

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:29960 WP No. 36144 of 2025

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

notification and the earlier directions of this Court in W.P.No.35032/2018 and connected matters and W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected matters and shall not consider the High Power Committee proceedings or order dated 23.03.2020.

¶140

v. The entire exercise shall be complete within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶141

vi. Since the earlier reports disclose the petitioners houses are seepage affected, the respondents shall initiate rehabilitation and compensation in accordance with law, without constituting any fresh committee.

¶142

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶143

HJ

¶144

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri. Nanjegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nanjegowda v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Mangala Gowri Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Rathnamma Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Sri Dominic Savio D Souza Vs the Commissioner

C. v. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D Purushotham Vs Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator (National Highway)