IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION Nos.48567-48594/2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHIVARAME GOWDA S/O. BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SRI DEVARAJE GOWDA S/O. BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. SRI CHANDRE GOWDA S/O. BORE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O. LATE NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 5. SRI VENKATESHA S/O. THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 6. SRI NAGARAJU S/O. JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 7. SRI SURESHA S/O. NAJUNDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 8. SRI RAJU S.G.
S/O. GOVINDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 9. SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. LATE RAVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 10. SMT. RATNAMMA W/O. HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 11. SMT. SUBBAMMA W/O. GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
12. SRI RAMAKRISHNA W/O. THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 13. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. LATE BOJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
14. SRI MUDLIGIRI GOWDA S/O. THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 15. SRI VAIRUMUDI GOWDA S/O. VENKATA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 16. SRI KEMPE GOWDA S/O. SIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
17. SRI NARAYANA S/O. KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 18. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 19. SMT. BORAMMA W/O. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
20. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 21. SMT. PADMAMMA W/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 22. SRI S.J. RUDRAYYA S/O. JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 23. SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O. BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 24. SRI NAGARAJU S/O. NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 25. SRI MUDLIGIRI GOWDA S/O. PATEL THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 26. SMT. MINAKSHI W/O. JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 27. SRI RAMESHA S/O. VENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 28. SRI PUTTARAJU S/O. THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHRAVANERI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI IRRIGATION PROJECT-II OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN – 573 116.
2. KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER HIGH POWER COMMITTEE HUNSUR ROAD, MYSURU – 570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS, OFFICE BUILDING, HASSAN – 573 116.
5. CHIEF ENGINEER, HEMAVATHI RESEVIOR PROJECT (LEFT CANAL) GORUR HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116.
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEMAVATHI RESEVIOR PROJECT (LEFT CANAL) CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-3 TO R-6;
SRI APPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DISPOSE OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD:18.03.2003, 08.08.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS THEREON, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 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, Shravaneri Village, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, has been declared as “Sheetha Peeditha 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 un-inhabitable 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 and on account of seepage of water from the Hemavathi Left Bank Main Canal. In this regard, the petitioners herein along with other similarly placed persons have made representations to the respondents herein on 18/03/2003 and 08/08/2008 vide Annexures-A and B to the writ petitions, seeking compensatory relief as well as rehabilitation measures. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said representations have 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 in respect of similar representations, this Court in W.P.Nos.47172-47173/2017 and connected writ petitions (Sri Shivanna and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Irrigation Project – II and others as on 17/10/2017) issued directions to consider the said representations as those representations were filed by the agriculturists and residents of Shravaneri Village as in the instant case.
4. 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.
5. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 18/03/2003 and 08/08/2008 (Annexures-A and B) for the purpose of consideration of the said representations. Petitioners are permitted to file copies of the said representations or fresh representations to the respondents so as to enable them to carry out necessary spot inspection in accordance with law and to take necessary steps in the matter for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioners herein for awarding compensation in the matter in respect of their house properties.
6. Writ petitions are disposed in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/- JUDGE S* BVNJ: WP Nos.48567-594/2017 (LA-RES) 27.11.2017.
ORDER ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO’ By Order dated 30.10.2017, these writ petitions were disposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar writ petitions, a time frame has been fixed by this Court and seeks that a time frame may be fixed in these writ petitions also for consideration of the representations made by the petitioners.
Learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that indeed a time frame has been fixed in similar writ petitions.
In the circumstances, the direction issued to the respondents shall be complied with. The representations shall be considered within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*