Karnataka High Court
Sri Y R Chandrashekar vs State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
WP No. 22476 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 22476 OF 2024 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
SRI.Y.R.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDENT OF
YADAKERE VILLAGE
YESALUR HOBLI
SAKALESHPUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M J ALVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
by CHAITHRA A
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT
DC OFFICE BUILDING
HASSAN - 573201
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
WP No. 22476 of 2024
4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHPUR SUB-DIVISION
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573134
5. THE TAHSILDAR
SAKALESHPUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573115
6. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
SAKALESHPUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573115
7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
HASSAN DIVISION
HASSAN - 570 201
8. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CEN CRIME POLICE
DCRB DIVISION
HASSAN - 573 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 O THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER NO.LND/HRP(D).1742/17-18 DATED 30/07/2022
PASSED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT, HASSAN/R3 CANCELLING THE
GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF
SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
WP No. 22476 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for
respondents.
2. The petitioner is assailing the order passed by
respondent No.3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer
canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner's
father on the premises that the value of the trees is not
deposited by the petitioner's father.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned AGA. Perused the judgment
rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case.
4. Having examined the materials on record, it is
evident that respondent No.3 has cancelled the grant
order on the premises that the father of the petitioner has
failed to make a payment of the trees standing in the land
granted to the petitioner. The cancellation of the grant on
the ground that the value of the trees is not deposited by
the Grantee is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
W.P. No.6200/2023. Para Nos.6 to 8 would be relevant
and the same are extracted, which read as under;
"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
cancelling the grant cannot be sustained.
7. At this juncture, the learned AGA
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 officials of the Forest Department.
Further, although the learned AGA 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 he is the owner of the
land, the extent of land submerged etc., this
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
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 AGA that an opportunity should be
given to the SLAO to have 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
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
him to pay the same in terms of Rule 11 of the
Rules 1969."
5. On examining the findings recorded by the
Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case, this Court is of the
view that the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench
while setting aside the cancellation of the grant is squarely
applicable to the present case on hand. In the case on
hand, the impugned order is not preceded by an enquiry.
In the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate
Bench in an identical set of facts, the petitioner in the
present case is entitled for the relief on the ground of
parity. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned order dated 30.07.2022
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, as per
Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:35520
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.
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/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
