SRI M LAKSHMINARAYANA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIDHANA SOUDHA

(BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. LIKITH R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND …RESPONDENTS R3) BEARING ENDORSEMENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NO.BENGALURU/ THE VIBHUSWAA-2/511/23-24 DTD 17.05.23 ISSUED BY THE R3 AS PER ANNEXURE-J. CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTION TO R3 TO PAY COMPENSATION OF THE MALKI/83 MANGO TREES IN RESPECT OF SY.NO 160 OF MASTHENAHALLI OF KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, PER NO.HISATHONI ANNEXURE-G JIPAMCHIN. THASA 21/22-23 DTD 03.04.23 AND ETC. CHIKKABALLAPURA LETTER DISTRICT BEARING AS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46890 WP No. 23879 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Since Sri. Likith R Prakash, learned counsel has filed Vakalath for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Registry is directed to delete the name of Sri. K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel in the cause list.

#2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the endorsement dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure-J) issued by respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer-2 (for short 'SLAO'), whereby the petitioner's claim for Malki compensation relating to 83 malki/mango trees in Survey No.160 of Masthenahalli Village, Kaivara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District (for short 'the schedule property') as per letter dated 03.04.2023 (Annexure-G).

#3. The brief facts of the case are as under; The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the schedule property, originally part of the Government gomala land (Old Survey No.54). The land was regularised - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46890 WP No. 23879 of 2024 HC-KAR and Saguvalli chit was issued on 09.01.2004, followed by mutation MR.No.17/2003-04. After phodi/durasthi, new Survey No.160 was assigned. The respondent-KIADB has issued final notification dated 26.05.2011 under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the KIAD Act') for establishing the Masthanahalli Industrial Area. Later amended on

04.06.2020, wherein Survey No.160 to an extent of 30 guntas was notified and the compensation for the land was paid at Rs.14,62,500/-. Before the issuance of Section 28(4) notification, the respondent-KIADB conducted a spot inspection with the Horticulture Department and it was recorded that 83 malki/mango trees were standing in Survey No.160. The respondent-KIADB initially accepted the acceptance, but later doubted the valuation. The Horticulture Department inspected and submitted a report dated 12.09.2022 recording that 83 malki/mango trees in Survey No.159 of the schedule property, aged more than 06 years and the revaluation report dated 03.04.2023 also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46890 WP No. 23879 of 2024 HC-KAR indicated that 83 malki/mango trees aged 11 years confirming the existence. Despite these official reports, the respondent-KIADB relied upon an internal communication alleging that the trees planted after the Joint Measurement Committee (for short 'JMC') dated 02.11.2019 cannot be compensated and ultimately the SLAO issued an endorsement dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure-J), rejecting the request of the petitioner to pay compensation for 83 malki/mango trees.

#4. Heard learned counsel the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Sri. Likith R Prakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the endorsement issued by the SLAO dated 17.05.2023 is arbitrarily, factually incorrect and ignores the multiple Horticulture Department's reports that consistently confirm the existence of 83 malki/mango trees aged about 11 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46890 WP No. 23879 of 2024 HC-KAR years. The denial of compensation on the ground of alleged post JMC planting is baseless and the horticulture valuation clearly reflect earlier to 2019 existence.

#6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits the malki/mango trees are existing after JMC dated 02.11.2019 and are not eligible for compensation and the respondent-KIADB has rightly concluded that the petitioner's malki/mango trees were planted after JMC and therefore denied the payment.

#7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the materials on record.

#8. The Horticulture Department, who conducted the inspection, assessed the existence, age and valuation of the horticulture trees, in its reports dated 12.09.2022 and 03.04.2023 uniformly certified 83 malki/mango trees aged about 6 to 11 years prior to 2019 JMC. The impugned order is based on internal communication without there being any material produced otherwise. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46890 WP No. 23879 of 2024 HC-KAR endorsement issued by the SLAO suffers non-application of mind. The denial of compensation to a land owner must be based on cogent evidence. In the present case, the undisputed valuation and malki abstracts demonstrate existence of malki/mango trees and also does not consider the valuation report submitted by the Horticulture Department. Hence, impugned endorsement dated 17.05.2023 (Annexure-J) does not stand the scrutiny of this Court. Hence, this Court pass the following: i) ii) ORDER The writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement

17.05.2023 (Annexure-J) issued respondent No.3-SLAO hereby quashed. iii) The matter is remanded to respondent No.3-SLAO for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim for malki/83 mango trees compensation pertaining to Survey No.160 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46890 WP No. 23879 of 2024 HC-KAR of Masthenahalli village, Kaivara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, iv) The petitioner shall be present before respondent No.3-SLAO on 08.12.2025 respondent No.3-SLAO reconsider the claim strictly in the light of Horticulture Department reports dated

12.09.2022 and 03.04.2023, the malki extract and other relevant materials, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No.3-SLAO shall pass an speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy this order. v) All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19