- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 16726 OF 2021 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HIRIYANNA S/O GIDDAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. SRI.RAMESH S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. SRI.NANJAGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4. SRI.NANJUNDAGOWDA S/O KALIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. SRI.PUTTEGOWDA S/O KALIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 6. SRI.DODDAGOWDA S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 7. SRI.NAGARAJU S/O MALLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 8. SRI.BEEREGOWDA S/O LAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 9. SRI.REVANNA S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 10. SRI.KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED CONSTABLE, 11. SRI.YOGANNA S/O BHOJA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 12. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O YOGANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 13. DEVARAGOWDA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 14. SRI MANJE GOWDA S/O BHOJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 15. SRI RANGA SWAMY S/O JEVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 16. SRI ANNE GOWDA S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 17. SMT THAYAMMA W/O LATE PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 18. SRI BEERE GOWDA S/O SANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 19. SRI DEVE GOWDA S/O SANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 20. SMT AKKAJAMMA W/O AMAWASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 21. NANJAIAH S/O JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 22. KARI GOWDA S/O GIDDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 23. NANJAMMA W/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 24. KRISHNE GOWDA S/O CHIKKE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 25. CHIKKE GOWDA S/O KALASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 26. SHEKAR S/O PUTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 27. K L PUTTASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SMT. PREMA W/O K.L. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 28. K.L. SWAMY S/O LATE LAKKE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 29. DODDE GOWDA S/O LAKKE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 30. RAVI S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 31. CHIKKE GOWDA S/O BHOJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 32. RANGE GOWDA S/O KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 33. JYOTHI GOWDA S/O KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 34. LAKKE GOWDA S/O JAVARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 35. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O NANJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 36. MANJE GOWDA S/O NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 37. KUMARI W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 38. M KRISHNE GOWDA S/O MALLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 39. GOWRAMMA W/O NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 40. NANDINI W/O RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 41. 41(a) 41(b) SHAMBULINGE GOWDA S/O KALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., RAMESH, S/O SHAMBULINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SATHISH S/O SHAMBULINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. J V HULSOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE SPECIAL ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI IRRIGATION PROJECT, HOLENARASIPURA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) 41(c) YOGESH, S/O CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 42. MARI GOWDA S/O CHIKKE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ALL ARE R/OF KUNCHEVU HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY R-1. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PASS ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION AND OTHER BENEFITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 15.11.2001 AND ANNEXURE-B AWARD DATED 06.09.2002 ISSUED BY R-1 AND R-3. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quash the order dated 22.12.2017 in No.KUM E 31 Bhoo Swaha 2014 Bengaluru vide Annexure-M issued by Respondent No.1. (ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus direct the respondents to pass orders for compensation and other benefits in accordance with notification vide Annexure-A, notification No.com E-19 Bu-sa-Ha 2001 dated 15.11.2001 and Annexure-B award bearing No.RGC LAQ, 9/2000-2001 dated 06.09.2002 issued by respondents 1 and 3. 2. Case of the petitioners in brief is: 2.1 That they are the residents of Kunchevu Hosahalli Village, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, which comes - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 under the Hemavathi Right Bank Canal Irrigation Project and that percolated water flowing around the village due to which the village has become "Seetha Peeditha Pradesh" (Cold Effected Area). 2.2 That a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 17.11.2000 followed by final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 15.11.2001 intending to acquire the lands of the petitioners. That several persons pursuant to the notifications have been awarded compensation and that petitioners have not been paid any compensation. That petitioners have submitted representation to the respondent authorities for rehabilitation of the villagers and for payment of compensation and the same having not been adhered to petitioners preferred writ petitions in W.P.Nos.35433 to 35442/2015 and W.P. Nos.59207-59240/2016 wherein this Court had directed the respondent No.3 to consider the representation within three months. 2.3 The respondent No.1 on 22.12.2017 rejected the claim of petitioners for rehabilitation. Hence, the petition. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 3. This Court by order dated 15.09.2023 after hearing learned Senior counsel for petitioners and learned AGA had passed the following order: The case of the petitioners is that they are the residents of village called Kunchevu Hosahalli Village, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. That the said village is situated on the bank of Hemavathi River and in view of the irrigation project undertaken by the Government, the village is affected due to the seepage of stagnated water. It is the further contention of the petitioners that a portion of the village has been declared to be "Cold Affected Area", as a consequence whereof, the said declared area has been acquired by the Government and compensation has been paid to those people, however, the petitioners, who are also residents of the very same village, being affected by the similar hardship, have been discriminated. Therefore, the petition. 2. The respondent-Government has filed a report dated 18.08.2022, in which it is specifically contended that as far back as in the year 1985, the said village was declared and considered as a 'Cold Affected Area'. Having declared thus, acquisition process was undertaken and about 43 residents, who were residing in the said village, were given compensation and were also provided rehabilitation facilities. It is further stated that having acquired the land and having given compensation, the said area vested with the Government and no development or any further activities could have been undertaken by anyone whomsoever. Annexure-2 to the said report at internal page 15 specifically lists out the petitioners before the Court, who are 42 in numbers. It is contended by the respondent-Government in the report that these 42 persons, who are the petitioners in this petition, have constructed their houses only on and after the year 2003-2004 in the area which was declared as 'Cold Affected Area' and was acquired in the year 1985 itself. The report further reads that these details and specific data as contained in Annexure-2 has been collected from the records available in the Grama Phanchayath. It is also stated that since the petitioners have on their own constructed the houses in the area after the year 2003-2004, which was acquired as far as back in the year 1985 as above, though receiving the assistance in various scheme, cannot claim any compensation on the premise that their lands having been affected as 'Cold Affected Area'. 3. In response, Sri Satish M.Doddamani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 petitioners have been in occupation of these houses since time immemorial and that their properties have never been acquired at any time under this 'Cold Affected Area' scheme. 4. A perusal of the pleading in the petition does not disclose anything being stated by the petitioners with regard to their right, title, entitlement and possession over the properties being claimed by them, which is the condition precedent to seek any relief in the proceedings of acquisition. 5. In that view of the matter, learned Senior counsel seeks some accommodation to enable the petitioners to furnish particulars of their entitlement of their respective properties prior to 1985. 6. At this juncture, this Court is also of the view that the respondent-Government may also furnish the records, based on which the report referred to above, has been prepared, more particularly the details of the acquisition of lands in the year 1985 and the constructions being made by the petitioners . 7. List this matter on 12.10.2023 to enable the petitioners to furnish details of their right, title, entitlement over the properties being claimed by them and the respondent- Government to furnish the records, as indicated above. ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2023 I.A.No.1/2023 for early is disposed of. 4. Pursuant thereof petitioners have filed Memo dated 20.02.2024 enclosing 33 documents running into 242 pages. Based on the aforesaid documents learned Senior counsel submits that at the time when the report was prepared (produced along with memo dated 15.09.2022), petitioners were not given any personal hearing and the details of the constructions purportedly carried out by the petitioners on and after the year 2003-04 had been allegedly obtained from the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 concerned Panchayat. Learned Senior counsel further submits if the petitioners are given opportunity of personal hearing they would produce the documents, now produced before this Court, which would enable the respondent authorities to take informed decision. Therefore he submits the respondent authorities be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. 5. In response learned AGA submits that the representation that were made by the petitioners in furtherance to the earlier orders passed by this Court was considered by the respondent authorities and only thereafter report referred to in the memo dated 15.09.2022 was arrived at. However she fairly submits that the petitioners were not given any personal hearing and the said report was prepared based on the information that was collected from the concerned Panchayat regarding the date and year of construction of the houses made by the petitioners. She therefore submits given some time personal opportunity would be granted to the petitioners and matter would be reconsidered. 6. Submission taken on record. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 7. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quash of Annexure-M which is the proceedings of the respondent-State wherein it is held that about 43 houses situated in Kunchevu Hosahalli Village, Holenarasipura Taluk has been acquired long ago and compensation in that regard had been paid and the owners of the said properties were resettled. The petitioners who are claiming compensation on similar grounds had apparently put up construction after the acquisition and after payment of compensation. Further the impugned proceedings also indicate that the respondent-State has taken a decision that the villages including Kunchevu Hosahalli Village which is the subject matter of present petition are no more considered as "cold effected areas" and there was no need for relocation of the occupants of the said village. Learned Senior counsel points out to the very report submitted by the respondent- State more particularly the report at page number 68 and document at page number 67 which is a communication issued by Senior Geologist, District Directorate of groundwater, Hassan addressed to Executive Engineer, Hemavathi Right Bank Canal Division, Holenarasipura wherein to a query raised at column Nos.7 and 9 the following is answered. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 ಒಸರುೆಯನು ಯಂ ಸಬಹುೆ.? Yes, 1. A good Drainage system consists of surface drains or subsurface drain or combination of both. Surface drainage is the removal of excess water with help of open ditches, field drains land grading and related structures suited for the existing site condition. 2. Subsurface drainage in the form of Horizontal, Vertical or combination of both are required for soils with poor internal drainage capacity with a high water table. It helps to avoid water logging very effectively and increase crop yield by draining the excess water and lowering the water table. ಾ ರಚೆಯು ಾಮದ ಮೆಗೆ ೕರು ಒಸರುೆಂದ ಾಕರಕ ೇ? NO ಪಸು"ತ ಪ$%& ಂದ ಸದ$ ಪೇಶವನು ೕತ ಪೇಶ ೆಂದು )ೂೕ+ಸಬಹುೆ? (¸À«ÄÃPÉë ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°èzÀÝAvÉ) Presently area is prone for water logging as per the static water levels prevailing in the area It is opinioned that by taking the above said preventive measures seepage can be controlled. 8. Referring to the same learned Senior counsel submits the impugned order at Annexure-M runs contrary to the said opinion given by Senior Geologist wherein persistent seepage water is noticed and recommendation is made for clearance of seepage. He submitted the order does not take into consideration the said expert opinion. Thus, on these counts seeks for quashing of the impugned endorsement. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 9. There is considerable force in the submission made by learned Senior counsel firstly, the impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners who are indeed the affected persons. Secondly, there is no reference to the material/expert opinion for the respondent-State to have come to the conclusion the villagers of Kunchevu Hosahalli are no more falling within the "cold effected area". This is in the light of the communication dated 17.08.2022 produced by the respondent authorities as referred to above wherein the Senior Geologist has opined that there is perennial seepage of water in the area. 10. For the aforesaid two reasons the impugned proceedings/order requires to be quashed. Accordingly following: ORDER 1. Petition is partly allowed. 2. Respondent-State is directed to depute an officer not less than the rank of Regional Commissioner to conduct fresh enquiry firstly with regard to the status - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 of the said village i.e., whether the same continues to be a cold effected area or not. Secondly to ascertain and determine the claim of petitioners with reference to the documents produced by them in justification of their claim of they being in possession of their respective residential houses prior to the year 1985. 3. The Regional Commissioner shall ensure the petitioners are given personal hearing either personally or through their authorised representatives and consider their case individually. 4. Since the parties are 42 in numbers and are being represented by their learned counsel they shall appear before the Regional Commissioner, Mysuru, on 25.03.2025 without waiting for any further notice. 5. The Regional Commissioner is at liberty to call for such report and seek such assistance from any of the officers of Revenue Department including the experts in the field while considering the case of the petitioners individually. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:7300 WP No. 16726 of 2021 6. Aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29