IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 38415 OF 2018 (LA-RES) & WRIT PETITION Nos. 38514-38535 OF 2018 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M A CHANDRAPPA S/O MARIAPPA @ ANNAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS 2. SRI.M.V. SHIVANANJAPPA S/O VEERAPPA, AGED 63 YEARS 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O PUTTASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. SMT. DRAKSHINI W/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED 43 YEARS 6. SRI.M.K.SHIVAIAH S/O KARIAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 7. SRI. SWAMAIAH S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 8. SRI. GOVINDAIAH S/O EERAYYA AGED 60 YEARS 9. SRI. SHANKARA SHETTY S/O KARISHETTY AGED 60 YEARS 10. SRI. SHANKARAIAH S/O DYAVAYYA @ ERAYYA AGED 44 YEARS 11. SMT. EERAJAMMA W/O CHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 12. SRI. SWAMY S/O BILAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 13. SRI.M.VEERABADHRAIAH S/O EERAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 14. SRI. KALAJAYYA S/O KARIYESHAIA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 15. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 16. SRI. ANNAIAH S/O SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 17. SRI.M.S. CHANNAIAH S/O YALAVAYYA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 18. SRI. EERAIAH S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 19. SRI. BLADIKAIAH S/O MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 20. SRI.M.K.DEVARAJAIAH S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 21. SRI. KALAJAIAH S/O MUTTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 22. SRI. RAJAIAH S/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 23. SRI.M.S.RAMESHA S/O SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MAKABALLI VILLAGE, HALLI MYSORE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE AND LAND ACQUISITION 1 AND 3, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-01 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI IRRIGATION PROJECT-II, OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE BUILDING,HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116 3. KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER HIGH POWER COMMITTEE, HUNSUR ROAD, MYSORE-570 001 REP BY ITS PRESIDENT 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN-573116 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP FOR R1,2,4 &5; SRI. K S BHEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 &6) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATITONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN DATED 06.04.2006 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners, villagers of Makaballi in Holenarasipura Taluka, are before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the official respondents to consider their representation dated 06.04.2006 and also to assess the damage caused to their house properties because of water seepage from the Nala of Hemavathi Reservoir Project.
2. In support of their claim, petitioners have banked upon a Joint Inspection Report dated 27.02.2006 made by a High Power Committee comprising of the functionaries of various Government Departments at Annexure-B. They have also relied upon the expert subcommittee recommendation having approval of the jurisdictional Chief Engineer on 13.07.2007 at Annexure-C as well.
3. After service of notice, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 have entered appearance through the learned HCGP Sri. Dildar Shiralli and the third respondent through its Panel counsel Sri. Bhimaiah. Both the learned counsel oppose the writ petitions contending that the recommendations are a matter left to the exclusive domain of the Executive, for consideration 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel opposing the writ petitions broadly in agreement that in identical matters, this court vide judgment dated 21.08.2018 (W.P.Nos. 35833/2018 & other connected matters) has made certain observations with a direction that the representation of the litigants therein should be considered. Paragraph Nos. 12 of the said judgment reads as under:
“12. In the circumstances, respondents are directed to consider the representations dated 06.04.2006 vide Annexure–A, by taking into consideration the report of the experts as per Annexures-B and C declaring Makaballi Village as “Sheetapidita Pradesha” wherein the petitioners are stated to be residing, and if the petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation, Respondents shall take steps to disburse the compensation in accordance with law. Such an exercise shall be carried out by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in an expeditious manner and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pressing this judgment into service submits that there is no reason to deny relief to the petitioners who are similarly circumstanced qua those in the cognate writ petitions mentioned above. The learned HCGP submits that there would be no difficulty in considering the representation of the petitioners in the light of the recommendations at Annexures B & C if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court therefor.
6. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to consider petitioners’ representations dated 06.04.2006 at Annexure-A in the light of the recommendations contained in the High Power Committee Report dated 27.02.2006 at Annexure-B and the report of consolidated opinions with the approval of the jurisdictional Chief Engineer, dated 13.07.2007 at Annexure-C, keeping in view the observations made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment mentioned supra, within a period of three months and further, to inform all the petitioners individually the result of such consideration, forthwith.
It is open to the jurisdictional official respondents to solicit any information or records from the petitioners that would be required for due consideration of their representation at Annexure-A.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv