IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.53137-53236/2017 (LA - RES) BETWEEN:
1. A B KUMARASWAMY S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. EARAMMA W/O GURUBASSAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. THONADHARYA S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 4. YADIYURAPPA S/O SIDDAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. ANGNADI MANJANNA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. NAGARATHNA W/O NARASIMHASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 7. VIRABHADRACHAR S/O KARADACHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 8. PUTTASWAMY S/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9. EARAMMA W/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 10. NANJAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 11. YOGESH S/O EARAPPACHARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 12. GAYATRI S/O YOGESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 13. MANJEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 14. SUBBEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 15. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 16. CHANNEGOWDA @ SWAMY S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 17. ANANATHARAMEGOWDA S/O APPAJI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 18. THAMMAYA S/O RUDRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 19. PUTTAVIRAIAH S/O LATE RUDRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 20. SRIDHAR S/O BHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 21. GOPAL S/O BHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 22. SUBBAMMA W/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 23. JAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHANEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 24. MARIYAMMA W/O PUTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 25. KALIMANJEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 26. GIRIYAMMA W/O RUDRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 27. RUDRASHETTY S/O MARISHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 28. CHANDRAMMA W/O ERANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 29. PUTTASHETTY S/O NINGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 30. SHIVAMMA W/O PUTTASHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 31. VENKATESH S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 32. PREMA W/O MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 33. SATISHA S/O LAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 34. ASHOK S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 35. SRIKANTA S/O LAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 36. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LAKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 37. RANGASWAMY S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 38. NANJAPPA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 39. MAHESH S/O LATE RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 40. GANGAMMA W/O PUTTASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 41. NANJUDEGOWDA S/O APPAJIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 42. YOGANANDA S/O APPAJIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 43. RANGAMMA S/O NANJABOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 44. SHANKAREGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 45. CHANDREGOWDA S/O SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 46. RANGASWAMY S/O MOHIGABOVI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 47. APPAJIGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 48. DEVAMMA W/O SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 49. SUSHILA W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 50. RANGASWAMY S/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 51. NANJUNDA S/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 52. DEVAMMA W/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 53. MAYAMMA W/O REVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 54. RAJEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 55. MEENAKSHI W/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 56. BHADRACHARI S/O DAKANACHARI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 57. KUNNAGADI PUTTABOVI S/O MOHIGABOVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 58. ANNAIAH S/O MOHIGABOVI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 59. JAVARAPPA S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 60. KESHAVAMURTHI S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 61. NAGARAJU S/O RAMADASA (JAVARAPPA) AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 62. RATHNAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 63. THAMMAIAH S/O CHALUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 64. PADMAMMA W/O NARASIMHAMURTHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 65. PUTTAMMA W/O MARIKALABOVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 66. SWAMY S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 67. VENKATESH S/O PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 68. HUCHIRAIAH S/O HOSALAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 69. LAKSHAMMA W/O SRINIVASASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 70. PARAMESHA S/O RUDRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 71. JAVARAPPA S/O BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 72. PREMA W/O RAJABOVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 73. KUMARA S/O THIMMASHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 74. THIMMAPPASHETTY S/O SANNADASASHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 75. JAYAMMA W/O NANJUNDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 76. RAMADASA S/O MUNIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 77. MOHIGABOVI S/O RAMABOVI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 78. CHANDRU @ MARIYAPPA S/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 79. RAJABOVI S/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 80. DHARMESHA S/O RAJABOVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 81. KALAMMA W/O RAJABOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 82. RANGASWAMY S/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 83. NANJAMMA W/O RAMABOVI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 84. MOHIGABOVI S/O MOHIGABOVI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 85. RAJABOVI S/O PUTTABOVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 86. KALABOVI @ RAJANNA S/O BANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 87. CHANDRAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 88. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 89. KRISHNAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 90. PUTTASWAMY S/O HONDANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 91. MANJULA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 92. MANJUNATHA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 93. MALLAPPA S/O. ERANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 94. VENKATESH S/O. NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 95. NINGAPPA S/O. ERANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 96. NANDEESH S/O. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 97. VENKATESH S/O. MALALIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 98. PUTTASWAMY S/O. MALALIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 99. PARVATHAMMA W/O. MALIGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 100. RAVI S/O. MALIGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST ALL PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS ANEKERE VILLAGE TQ:CHANNAPATNA DISTRICT HASSAN (BY SRI.VEDHU KUMAR Y S., ADV.,) AND:
1. THE SPL LAO HEMAVATHI LEFT BANK CANAL CANAL NO. 11, DISTRIBUTARY NALA HASSAN – 573 201 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI LEFT BANK CANAL CHANNARAYAPATNA – 573 118 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BM ROAD, D C OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN – 573 201 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY ... PETITIONERS REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R4; SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADV., FOR R2) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONERS APPEALED TO THEM VIDE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.11.2016 AT ANNEXURE - E, AND TO ISSUE NOTIFICATION FOR ACQUISITION OF THE HOUSES/PROPERTIES AND PAY COMPENSATION MAKE IMMEDIATELY THE REHABILITATION ARRANGEMENTS TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
ORDER Though these writ petitions are listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.
2. Petitioners claim to be the agriculturists who are cultivating their respective lands. They submit that on account of construction of Hemavathi Reservoir Project (Hemavathi Left Bank Main Canal), their village namely, Anekere Village has been declared as “sheetha peditha pradesha” on account of seepage of water. It is stated that on account of seepage of water due to the construction of reservoir project, their houses have become uninhabitable and it is not possible for them to reside in their houses. They have prayed for rehabilitation insofar as their residence is concerned as well as monetary compensation on account of the damage caused to their respective house properties due to dampness on account of seepage of water from the Hemavathi Left Bank Main Canal. In this regard, petitioners herein along with other similarly placed persons have made representations to the respondents herein on 03/11/2016 (Annexure-E) seeking compensatory relief as well as rehabilitation measures. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said representation has not been considered yet. Hence, they have sought for a direction in that regard.
3. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit at the Bar that several writ petitions have been previously filed by similarly situate petitioners and this Court has disposed of those writ petitions by issuing directions to the respondent-authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioners in accordance with law.
4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted copy of the order passed by this Court on 17/11/2017 in W.P. Nos.51739-51763/2017 (LA-
RES) which is in respect of the residents of Anekere Village where the present petitioners reside and that these writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that indeed this Court has issued directions for consideration of the representations in accordance with law and, therefore, similar direction could be issued in these writ petitions also.
6. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners herein, which have been addressed to respondent Nos.1 to 4, by carrying out necessary spot inspection and to assess the damage caused to petitioners’ houses on account of seepage of water from the Hemavathi Left Bank Main Canal and take necessary steps for payment of compensation to the petitioners herein in accordance with law. For the purpose of completing the said exercise, six months time is granted to the respondents from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv