IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.43925/2019 (LA – RES) BETWEEN :
NANJUNDASWAMY S/O BOMMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT K.BELATHUR VILLAGE, SARGUR HOBLI, HEGGADADEVANAKOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571121 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV.) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS, Dr. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT-570005 3. THE DIRECTOR, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE:
CAUVERY BHAVAN COMPLEX, 4TH STAGE, GOKULAM MANJUNATHAPURA, MYSORE-570022 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KABINI RESERVOIR DIVISION KABINI COLONY, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570022 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TARAKA CHANNEL SUB-DIVISION (TARAKA NALA UPAVIBHAGA) CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, H.D.KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT-571114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH KUMAR, HCGP.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER EITHER TO FACILITATE HIM WITH ALTERNATIVE LAND BY WAY OF GRANT OR TO PAY ADEQUATE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXISTING MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND LOST BY THE PETITIONER BY PASSING AWARD IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING LAW WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the valuable land belonging to him has been submerged in the backwater of Hebbala Reservoir upon its construction and storage of water and the representation made since 2005 has not been considered either to facilitate him with alternative land by way of grant or to pay adequate compensation amount in accordance with law by passing the suitable award. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents in this regard, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that no representation submitted by the petitioner’s counsel is made available before this Court except Annexure-C whereby the petitioner’s counsel is said to have made some representation seeking for suitable relief which has no relevancy in the eye of law. Hence, the petition deserves to be rejected.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served in directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner and if such a representation is made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the respondent No.2 in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: