- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 31952 OF 2024 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJASHEKAR A. R. S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT ‘SIRI NILAYA’, BUDDHA MARGA 1ST CROSS NEAR VIVEKANANDA SWAMY PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HASSAN - 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISHA H. M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILIDNG, BENGALURU–560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN – 573 201 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT DC OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN – 573 201 4. THE ASST. COMMISSONER SAKALESHPUR SUB-DIVISION HASSAN DISRICT – 573 134 5. THE TAHSILDAR BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISRICT–573115. Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 6. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT–573115. 7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN–570201. 8. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CEN CRIME POLICE, DCRB DIVISON, HASSAN – 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SESU, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. LND/HRP(D) 255/2005-06 DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT HASSAN / RESPONDENT NO.3 CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE GRANTEE IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case No.L.N.D/HRP(D):225/2005-06 at Annexure-A. 2. The petitioner claims to be the beneficiary under a registered Will executed by late. Smt. Channakallamma - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 W/o late. Channachar, who lost her lands due to submergence of his lands under water on the construction of Hemavati/Yagachi/ Vatehole Reservoir Project. 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, 3.37 Acres of land along with 03 Guntas of Kharab land (in total 4.00 Acres) in Sy.No.119, Block VI of Ghattadahalli Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Beluru Taluk, was granted in favour of said Smt.Channakallamma. 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 ‘SLAO’) has passed the impugned order canceling the grant on the ground that the grantee did not obtain ‘No Objection - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 agrees to pay the value of the trees and defaults to pay the same, it may 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 was given to the grantee calling upon 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 grantee/petitioner was called upon to pay the value of the standing trees. In that view - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 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. 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 grantee/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 High Court Government Pleader 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 of the officials of the Forest Department. Further, although the learned HCGP 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 the grantee/petitioner 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 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/petitioner and therefore, on the ground of denial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 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 HCGP 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 grantee/petitioner regarding the value of the trees and call upon petitioner to pay the same in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules 1969, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2023 in case No.LND/HRP(D):255/2005-06 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, at Annexure ‘A’, is hereby quashed and set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 (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 grantee/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 grantee/petitioner informed of his decision having regard to the provisions contained - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34767 WP No. 31952 of 2024 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 grantee/petitioner, the revenue entries shall also be restored in the RTC. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL