Kale Gowda R R v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 781 OF 2026 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN:

KALE GOWDA R.R, S/O RANGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS PADUMANAHALLI VILLAGE KATTAYA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶2THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BUILDING (HEMAVATHI RESERVIOR PROJECT) HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶3THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE D.C.R.B.DIVISION (C.E.N.CRIME POLICE ) HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)

by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTIUTITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CERTIORARI QUASHING ANNEXURE G DATED 24-03-2022 MADE IN NO LND /HE JA YO

(DA) 442/2017-18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 24.03.2022 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan in case No.LND/He Ja Yo (Da) 442/2017-18 at Annexure-G.

¶2The petitioner is an individual who lost his lands due to submergence of the same 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 Acres 35 guntas including 5 guntas of karab land in Block No.1 of Sy.No.50 situated at Masuvanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sakleshpur Taluk, Hassan District was granted. 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 in respect of the petitioner cancelling the grant.

¶3Having regard to the ground on which the impugned order has been passed, it is clear that the SLAO has cancelled the grant on one of the following grounds : a) Grant was made to a person who had not lost any land in submergence; b) Bogus grant order has been created, although no such grant order was passed; c) Dual grant orders have been passed on the basis of one award passed by the SLAO;

d) Such dual grant orders and fictitious grant orders have been passed during the tenure of Sri.V.Srinivas Gowda or Sri B.A.Jagadeesh who were the then Special Land Acquisition Officers; e) Land granted is a forest land and not revenue lands and therefore it could not have been granted.

¶4The factual information and the ground on which the impugned order of cancellation has been passed by the SLAO is identifiable as one of the grounds noticed hereinabove. 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.

¶5Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

ii) The impugned order dated

24.03.2022 passed in case No.LND/He Ja Yo (Da) 442/2017-18 at Annexure-G passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) The matter stands remanded back to the SLAO to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to submit any material to defend the order of grant.

iv) Insofar as the cancellation orders passed on the ground that the land in question is a forest land and not revenue land and therefore, it could not have been granted, the SLAO is required to reconsider the matter after securing the opinion from the forest department as well as the Revenue department. If ultimately it is found that the land is a forest land, then alternative lands shall be granted to the petitioner.

v) Consequent to the restoration of the grant in favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries shall also be restored in the RTC.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1