MRS. PHILOMINA v. SRI. H.M. GIRISHA, ADVOCATE)

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.LND/HRP(1)(D).05/08-09 DATED 08.06.2023 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT, HASSAN/R3 CANCELING THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14346 WP No. 22356 of 2023 ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL): The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated

08.06.2023 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, No.L.N.D/HRP(1)(D):05/2008-09.

2. The petitioner claims to be the legal representative of Late Insaappa, who lost his lands due to submergence of his construction Hemavati/Yagachi/Vatehole Reservoir. In terms of the scheme proposed by the State Government, a person who lost land on 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, 4 acres 19 guntas (including 19 guntas of kharab land) in Sy.No.53, Block 'C' of Bettagalale Village, Konanuru Hobli, Arkalagudu Taluk 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 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14346 WP No. 22356 of 2023 ‘SLAO’) has passed the impugned order canceling 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14346 WP No. 22356 of 2023 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.

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 - NC: 2024:KHC:14346 WP No. 22356 of 2023

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 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:14346 WP No. 22356 of 2023 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 her to pay the same in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules 1969, this Court proceeds to pass the following: i) ii) ORDER Writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 08.06.2023 in case No.L.N.D/HRP(1)(D):05/2008-09 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:14346 WP No. 22356 of 2023 Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure ‘A’, 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. 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. SNC, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0 CT: BHK Sd/- JUDGE