- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24103 OF 2022 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JANAKAMMA,
W/O CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O KARKIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST,
PRESENT ADDRESS:
NELLIGERE VILLAGE,
ALURU TALUKU,
DIST. HASANA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YATNAL PARASAPPA GURAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
by USHA N S
M.S. BUILDING,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
BANGALORE - 560 001,
KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRIT - 573 214.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, BELUR,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
FOR HEMAVATI RESERVOIR PROJECT,
HASANA - 573 214.
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT,
AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ORDER NO.LND/YABHOOMA(DA)65/2016-17
DATED:29.08.2022 PASSED BY THE R4 PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-E ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated
29.08.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case
No.L.N.D/YABHOOMA(DA):65/2016-17.
2. The petitioner claims to be the legal representative of
Late Channegowda who lost his lands due to submergence of
his lands under water on the construction of
Hemavati/Yagachi/Vatehole Reservoir. In terms of the scheme
proposed by the State Government, a person who lost land on
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
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, 04 Acres of land & 0-05
guntas of Kharab land in Sy.No.26 of Karkihalli VIllage, Kasaba
Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, was granted to the
petitioner. 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 order cancelling the grant on the ground that the
petitioner did not obtain ‘No Objection Certificate’ for having
paid the price of the malki/standing trees.
3. Having regard to the ground on which the order has
been passed, learned counsel for the petitioner 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
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
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, 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
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-cum-auction sale. Sub-rule
(3) provides that if the value is more than Rs.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 petitioner calling upon
her to pay the value, there was no occasion for the competent
authority to cancel the grant.
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
4. 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 petitioner was called upon to pay the value
of the standing trees. In that view of the matter, it is
submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. There is substance in the submissions of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner.
6. 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 Department and since
it is not stated that the petitioner was called upon to pay the
value of the standing trees, this Court is of the opinion that the
impugned order passed by the SLAO canceling the grant cannot
be sustained.
7. At this juncture, the learned HCGP 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
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
officials of the Forest Department. Further, although the
learned HCGP seeks to point out from the impugned order that
some observations have been made by the SLAO that relevant
records have not been furnished by the petitioner to show
whether she is the owner 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 petitioner. 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 value of the standing trees. 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.
8. However, accepting the submission of the learned
HCGP that an opportunity should be given to the SLAO to have
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
the valuation of the standing trees made at the hands of the
competent authority and inform the petitioner regarding the
value of the trees and call upon her to pay the same in terms of
Rule 11 of the Rules 1969, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2022 in case
No.LND/YABHOOMA (DA) 65/2016-17 passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi
Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure ‘E’, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) The matter stands remanded back to the SLAO
to have the value of the standing trees in the
granted land assessed at the hands of the
competent authority. Thereafter information
shall be provided to the petitioner in terms of
Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969, if the value is to be
paid by the petitioner.
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.
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC:13278
WP No. 24103 of 2022
v) At any rate, the SLAO shall keep the petitioner
informed of his decision having regard to the
provisions contained in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule
(3) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1969.
vi) Consequent to the restoration of the grant in
favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries
shall also be restored in the RTC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SNC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0
CT: SNN