Karnataka High Court
Sri Thammaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 May, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
W.A No.2221/2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
WRIT APPEAL No.2221 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN :
SRI. THAMMAIAH
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A MAGGE VILLAGE
K.HOSAKOTE HOBLI
ALUR TALUK-573 213
HASSAN DISTRICT ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 201
2. THE THASILDAR
ALUR TALUK, ALUR-573 213
HASSAN DISTRICT
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHY RESERVOIR PROJECT
HASSAN-573 201
W.A No.2221/2013
2
4. SMT. PREMA
W/O LATE THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE (CHECK POST)
KASABA HOBLI
ALUR TALUK, ALUR-573 213
HASSAN DISTRICT
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
4(A). SMT. ANITHA
D/O LATE SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4(B). SMT. SUNITHA
D/O LATE SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4(C). SRI. UMESH
S/O LATE SMT. PREMA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.4(A) TO 4(C) ARE
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ALUR TALUK, ALUR-573 213
HASSAN DISTRICT
[AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS
PER THE ORDER DATED
12.07.2019] ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. T.P. SRINIVAS, GA FOR R1 TO R3;
SHRI. K.S. LOKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 [A-C])
....
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.28045/2009(KLR-RES) DATED 17.08.2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.04.2022 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH
KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.A No.2221/2013
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against dismissal of the
writ petition No.28045/2009 vide order dated
August 17, 2012.
2. We have heard Shri. A. Lourdu
Mariyappa, learned Advocate for appellant, Shri.
T.P. Srinivas, learned Government Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 3 and Shri. K.S. Lokesh
Kumar, learned Advocate for respondents
No.4(a-c).
3. Brief facts of the case are, the appellant
has filed the instant writ petition contending inter
alia that his father Thimmaiah's land bearing Sy.
No.10/2 of Gorur village in Hassan District was
submerged in the back waters of Hemavathi
Reservoir. In the Rehabilitation Scheme, 4 acres
of land in Block No.42 of Byaba Forest had been
W.A No.2221/2013
granted to his father and a Saguvali chit was
issued.
4. One Thammaiah, S/o. Dyavaiah
approached the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.
No.48/86-87 contending that he had lost the land in
the Hemavathi Reservoir project; that 4 acres of
land in Block No.195 was granted to him and at the
instance of appellant's father, Grant order was
modified by changing his father's name, in favour of
appellant's father. The Deputy Commissioner had
ordered that the land be granted in favour of
Thammaiah, S/o.Dyavaiah. The said order was
challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal1
in appeal No.665/1990. The matter was remanded
to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy
Commissioner, vide order dated 28.03.2001, partly
allowed the appeal and directed the SLAO2 to
reconsider the matter. The SLAO, by his order
'KAT' for short
Special Land Acquisition Officer
W.A No.2221/2013
dated 17.08.2004, directed that the land be granted
in the name of Thammaiah, S/o.Dyavaiah.
Appellant again approached the Deputy
Commissioner in R.A. No.23/2004-05 and vide
order dated 17.02.2009, the Deputy Commissioner
has upheld the order passed by the SLAO. Appellant
challenged the said order in the writ petition. The
writ petition has been dismissed. Hence, this
appeal.
5. Shri. Lourdu Mariyappa, for appellant
submitted that in the second round of litigation, the
Deputy Commissioner had directed the SLAO to re-
examine the matter. The SLAO, without properly
appreciating the fact that the land claimed by
appellant is in Block No.195 and the land claimed
by fourth respondent is in respect of Block No.42,
has erroneously passed the order dated
17.08.2004. The writ petition has been considered
in the absence of the appellant's Advocate. With
W.A No.2221/2013
these submissions, he prayed for allowing this writ
appeal.
6. Learned Advocate for respondents
argued opposing the writ appeal.
7. We have carefully considered rival
contentions and perused the records.
8. The controversy in this case is with
regard to allotment of land under the rehabilitation
Scheme. This case has a checkered history.
Appellant claims to have lost land in the Hemavathi
Reservior project and 4 acres was granted to him.
In the first round of litigation, the KAT had
remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.
The Deputy Commissioner had directed the SLAO to
reconsider the matter. The SLAO, held that 4 acres
of land in Block No.42 must be granted in the name
of Thammaiah S/o. Dyavaiah.
W.A No.2221/2013
9. Appellant herein, challenged SLAO's
order before the Deputy Commissioner again.
Shri. Mariyappa contended that before the Deputy
Commissioner appellant had produced documents
to support his contention that he had also lost land.
He argued that the Deputy Commissioner has
refused to consider those documents. Therefore,
the impugned order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner is not sustainable.
10. We have perused the order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.02.2009. It is
recorded in that order that in proceedings
No.R.A.48/1986-87 (in the earlier round of
litigation), the learned Advocate for the appellant
had admitted that land belonging to the appellant
were not submerged; the appellant had not raised
the contention with regard to submersion of his
land earlier. Therefore, the documents produced by
the appellant were not considered. Thus, the
W.A No.2221/2013
Deputy Commissioner has placed reliance on the
submission of learned Advocate made in the earlier
round of litigation and refused to look into the
documents which the appellant sought to produce
before him. As recorded hereinabove, this is a case
of grant of land to the displaced persons.
Appellant's specific case is that, he has also lost
land and he had sought to produce documents to
the effect, but the Deputy Commissioner has
refused to look into them.
11. It is sometimes possible that due to
poverty and illiteracy, poor agriculturists will not be
able to effectively prosecute their cases. On that
score, cause of justice should not suffer. Therefore,
it is just and appropriate for the Deputy
Commissioner to have a re-look into the matter
with regard to the appellant's claim that his land
was also submerged. Hence, the matter requires to
be remanded.
W.A No.2221/2013
12. To a pointed query by this Court, it was
submitted by the learned Advocates for appellant
and respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 is in
possession of the land and the same shall continue
till reconsideration of appellant's case in the hands
of Deputy Commissioner.
13. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
(a) Writ appeal is allowed.
(b) Order dated 17.08.2012 in W.P.
No.28045/2009 is set-aside.
(c) Order dated 17.02.2009 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner in R.A. No.23/2004-05 is set-
aside.
(d) Matter is remitted to the Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan, to re-examine the case on
merits and pass fresh orders in an outer limit of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, wholly uninfluenced by any observations
W.A No.2221/2013
made either in this order or any order in the earlier
round of litigation.
(e) Fourth respondent's possession over the
land in question shall continue and the same shall
be subject to the orders to be passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Hassan.
(f) Appellant and fourth respondent shall
appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan on
20.06.2022 and the proceedings shall commence
from that day.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
