IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.51538/2019 (LA – RES) BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, 2 . SRI SANNAKALAIAH S/O ERAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS 3 . SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE CHANNAIAH, AGED 70 YEARS, 4 . SRI KALAIAH S/O SANNAKALAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, 5 . SMT. DEVAMMA W/O KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 6 . SRI CHANNAIAH S/O HALARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 7 . SRI. CHANNAIAH S/O CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 8 . SRI. SWAMY S/O LATE KENDIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, 9 . SRI KALAIAH S/O BELURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 10 . SMT. THAYAMMA W/O ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 11 . SMT KALAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 12 . SRI AMASAIAH S/O LATE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 13 . SRI RAJAIAH S/O DASAIAH AGED 60 YEARS 14 . SRI LATE KALAIAH S/O LATE KALLAIAH SINCE DEAD LRS BROUGHT ON RECORD (i) NAGAMMA W/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 15 . SRI SWAMAIAH S/O BELURAIAH AGED 60 YEARS 16 . SRI SANNAKALAIAH S/O SUBBAIAH AGED 63 YEARS 17 . SRI. RAJAIAH S/O SUBBAIAH AGED 60 YEARS 18 . SRI. DASAIAH S/O KULLAIAH AGED 65 YEARS 19 . SRI CHANNARAYI S/O KULLAIAH AGED 65 YEARS 20 . SRI RAJAIAH S/O KENDAIAH AGED 55 YEARS 21 . SRI. BELURAIAH S/O BELURAIAH AGED 55 YEARS 22 . SRI CHANDRAIAH S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 23 . SMT.SANNAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 24 . SRI PUTTARAJACHARI S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 25 . SRI SANNAKALAIAH S/O LATE CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT KADAVINA BACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLI MYSORE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI RAJARAMA SOORYAMBAIL, ADV.] AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY LAND REVENUE AND LAND ACQUISITION 1 AND 3 M S BUILDING. BANGALORE-01 2 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT-II OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMISSIONER’S OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116 3 . KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER HIGH POWER COMMITTEE HUNSUR ROAD, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
5 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN-573116 6 . THE CHIEF ENGINEER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT GORUR, HASSAN 573116 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-4 & R-5;
SRI SANJAY KUMAR H.C., ADV. FOR SRI K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADV. FOR R-3 & R-6.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN TIME NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN DATED 13.10.2003 AND 25.11.2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R It is the grievance of the petitioners that the representations submitted by them dated 13.10.2003 and 25.11.2003 at Annexures – A and B respectively have remained unconsidered.
2. It is submitted that the petitioners are the agriculturists who have been cultivating and doing agricultural activities in their own land i.e., in Kadavina Bachanahalli village, Halli Mysore Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. It is the contention of the petitioners that on introduction of the Hemavathi Reservoir Project by the respondents, due to the stockage of back water in the said dam, the entire village and the residential houses of the petitioners are seeped on account of water logging. Due to the said seepage, some of the houses of the petitioners have been collapsed and damaged. In this background, several representations were made by the petitioners seeking for award of compensation and rehabilitation. Despite the spot inspection conducted by the Tahasildar and a report submitted before the High Power Committee for necessary action, no proceedings have been initiated and no decision has been taken by the competent authority – respondent Nos.2 to 6. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.29604-608/2018 and allied matters as well as W.P.Nos.33143-33243/2018 in support of his contention that in identical circumstances, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and to take a decision in an expedite manner and accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to similar relief.
4. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents do not dispute the same.
5. However, considering the date of the representations submitted by the petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit a fresh representation for redressal of their grievance before the competent authorities – respondent Nos.2 to 6. If such fresh representation/s is/are submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with law keeping in mind the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions referred to above and an appropriate decision shall be taken in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of representation/s to be submitted by the petitioners. Ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR