H M Anjaneya vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11265 Kant

                           -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                       PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       WRIT PETITION NO.895 OF 2010 (KLR-LG-PIL)

  BETWEEN:

  1.    H.M.ANJANEYA
        S/O. H.MURUGENDRAPPA
        AGED 46 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE
        R/O KULAMBI VILLAGE
        HONNALI TQ
        DAVANAGERE DIST.

  2.    M.HANUMANTHAPPA
        S/O. MADAPPA
        AGED 62 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE

  3.    H.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
        S/O. H.HALAPPA
        AGED 48 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE

  4.    S.B.MURIGAPPA
        S/O. BASAVANAGOWDA
        AGED 46 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE

  5.    G.S.RAVIKUMAR
        S/O. G.SHIVPPA
        AGED 42 YEARS
        OCC: AGRICULTURE
                          -2-


6.    G.MARULASIDDAPPA
      S/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH
      AGED 40 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

      PETITIONER 2 TO 6 ARE
      R/O KUNDUR VILLAGE
      HONNALI TQ
      DAVANAGERE DIST.

7.    NAGESHAPPA
      S/O HALAPPA
      AGED 52 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

8.    T.S.HALESH
      S/O SIDDAPPA
      AGED 40 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

9.    SHANMUKAPPA
      S/O SHIVABASAPPA
      AGED 47 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

10.   T.HOBALESH
      S/O THOTAPPA
      AGED 37 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

11.   VEERESHBABU
      S/O MARULAPPA
      AGED 38 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE

      PETITIONER 7 TO 11 ARE
      R/O NERLEGUNDI VILLAGE
      HONNALI TQ
      DAVANAGERE DIST.

12.   KRISHNAPPA
      S/O NAPURI HANUMANTHAPPA
      AGED 49 YEARS
      OCC: AGRICULTURE
                           -3-


13.    M.NAGARAJ
       S/O MALLAPPA
       AGED 36 YEARS
       OCC: AGRICULTURE

       PETITIONER 12 TO 13 ARE
       R/O KUMBALUR VILLAGE
       HONNALI TQ
       DAVANAGERE DIST.
                                        ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI MAHANTESH.S.HOSMATH, ADVOCATE
    SRI N.KUMAR AND SRI.MAHESH, ADVOCATES FOR
    PEITIONER NOS.3 AND 5 TO 13 (ABSENT))

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       M.S.BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 01

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       DAVANAGERE

3.     TAHASILDAR
       HONNALI, DIST. DAVANAGERE

4.     THE KARNATAKA RENEWABLE ENERGY
       DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KREDL)
       REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
       REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19,
       MAJOR GENERAL
       A D LOGANATHAN
       INA CROSS, QUEEN'S ROAD
       BANGALORE - 52
       REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

5.     M/S. VESTAS RRB INDIA LTD.
       #17, VEMBULLAMMAN KOLL STREET
       K K NAGAR (WEST), CHENNAI - 78
       REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                          -4-


6.   M/S. SUZLON ENERGY LIMITED
     101 A, 1ST FLORR, PRESTIGE TOWERS
     NO.100, RESIDENCY ROAD
     BANGALORE - 25
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

7.   M/S. MSPL LIMITED
     NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE COLONY
     HOSPET - 583 203
     DIST: BELLARY
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

8.   M/S. V.S.LAD & SONS
     DRASRATH NIVAS, KRISHANGAR
     SANDUR - 583 119
     DIST: BELLARY
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
    SRI.SAMRATH KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR R4
    SRI.B.C.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 [ABSENT]
    SRI.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R6
    SRI.S.SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R7
    SRI.P.N.RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R8 [ABSENT])
                          ---

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER NO.RD 30 LGC 2004 DATED
23.08.2004, ANNEXURE-E AND KAM E:06:LGC:2005 DATED
24.06.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, PASSED BY THE UNDER
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE AND
ORDER NO.LND/CR/9/03-04 DATED 2.11.2004, VIDE
ANNEXURE-C,        AND      LND:CR/26/04-05    DATED
29.06.2004/07.07.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE, AND PLEASE
TO CANCEL THE LEASE DEED DATED 20.10.2005,
23.11.2005, 18.01.2008, 22.11.2008 AT ANNEXURE-G, H, J
AND K AND ETC.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                           -5-


                     JUDGMENT

Mr.Vijaykumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr.Samarth Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Mr.Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

Mr.S.Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel for

respondent No.7.

The petitioners are the agriculturists, residing

in Kundur, Yakkanahalli, Thimlapura, Kumblur and

Neralagundi villages of Honnali Taluk, Davanagere

District. They have filed this writ petition as a Public

Interest Litigation (PIL) in which a challenge has

been made to the orders dated 23.08.2004 and

24.06.2005 passed by the Under Secretary, Revenue

Department as well as the orders dated 02.11.2004

and 29.06.2005/07.07.2005 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Davanagere District. In addition, the

petitioners seek cancellation of the lease deeds dated

20.10.2005, 23.11.2005, 18.01.2008 and

22.11.2008.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition

briefly stated are that the Government of Karnataka

has established Karnataka Renewable Energy

Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as

'KREDL', for short) as its nodal agency to look into

all the aspects associated with renewable energy.

3. KREDL is a company which has been

constituted with an object of promotion of non-

conventional energy sources in the State of

Karnataka. Its aim and object is to promote the

projects for harnessing energy from wind, small-

hydro, biomass and solar energy through private

investment. On 03.03.2004, the Government of

Karnataka granted sanction to a proposal for grant

of lease of 95 acres of land in various survey

numbers in Honnali and Channagiri Taluks of

Davanagere District to KREDL for a period of 30

years. Thereafter, on 24.06.2005 the State

Government granted approval for allotment of 95

acres of land for establishment of Davanagere

District Pavan Electricity Unit by respondent No.5 -

M/s. Vestas RRB India Limited.

4. Thereafter, the Government of Karnataka

granted lease in favour of KREDL for the period of 30

years commencing from 07.01.2005, vide registered

lease deed dated 20.10.2005 for the purpose of

subleasing the same to respondent No.5 in respect of

land measuring 53 acres situated in Neeralgundhi

and Kumbalur villages.

5. Upon grant of sublease, respondent No.5

established wind turbines on the lands which were

leased by KREDL. The respondent No.7 namely,

M/s.MSPL Limited submitted an application on

27.01.2006 to KREDL seeking transfer of 6 MW

project. The Government of Karnataka entered into

an agreement on 10.03.2006 with MSPL Limited to

setup wind power project of 6 MW capacity located

at Davangere District subject to terms and

conditions mentioned therein. It is not in dispute

that MSPL Limited has set up 10 units of wind

turbine generators of 600 KW capacity and have

been commissioned in 3 phases. MSPL Limited has

entered into an agreement for supply of electricity

with MESCOM on 26.07.2006. Thus, on the lands

which were leased out, a renewable energy project

has been set up which makes the energy available

and also generates revenue for the State.

6. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the

grievance of the petitioners is that the lands in

question have been reserved under the provisions of

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act', for short) as gomal land and,

therefore, the same cannot be granted in favour of

respondent Nos.4 to 8. The apprehension of the

petitioners, as pleaded in the petition, appears to be

that the extent of gomal land has been reduced

without there being an order under Section 71 of the

Act.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the

respondents at length.

8. From the perusal of the statement of objections,

it is evident that the lands in question have been

leased out to respondent No.4 which have been in

turn subleased to respondent Nos.5 to 8. Thus, it is

evident that the nature of gomal land has not been

changed. From perusal of paragraph 8 of statement

of objections, it is evident that there is no prohibition

for grazing of the cattle in respect of the leased land

except where transformers, etc. have been erected

and the respondent Nos.5 to 8 have put up the

fence. The land is neither reserved in favour of

respondent No.4 nor has been granted to private

respondents. Therefore, the grievance of the

petitioners appears to be misconceived. On the

other hand, we find that the land in question has

- 10 -

been leased out in larger public interest for setting

up of renewable source of energy, namely generation

of electricity by wind power which in turn earns

revenue to the State Government.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any

merit in this petition. The same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB