IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.41709/2017 & W.P.NOS.42094-42114/2017( LA– RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. YOGESH S/O. NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
2. SRI. BEERE GOWDA S/O. KALSE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
3. SRI. SHIVALINGE GOWDA S/O. JAVARE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
4. NAGAMMA W/O. KALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
5. JOSEPH MERI S/O. ANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
6. SMT. SAVITRAMMA W/O. RAMACHANDAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
7. SRI. BASAVE GOWDA S/O. NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
8. SRI. CHANDRE GOWDA S/O. JAVRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
9. SRI. DEVRAJU S/O. NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
10. SRI. SHANKAR S/O. NANJE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
11. SRI. KUMAR S/O. KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
12. SRI. RAVI S/O. KRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
13. SRI. RANGASWAMI S/O. KEMPE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
14. SMT. BHARATHI W/O. HONNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
15. SRI. S. B. DEVANATH S/O. BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
16. SRI. SUDHAKAR S/O. HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
17. SRI. KUMAR S/O. HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
18. SRI. LOKESH S/O. BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
19. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
20. SMT. SHOBA W/O. DINESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
21. SRI. SHANKARE GOWDA S/O. KALLE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
22. SRI. JAVARE GOWDA S/O. BEERE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI IRRIGATION PROJECT-II, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 116.
2. THE PRESIDENT HIGH POWER COMMITTEE, HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT, HUNSUR ROAD, MYSORE – 572 101.
3. SECRETARY KAVERI NIRAVARI NIGAMA ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN – 573 116.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1, R-2 AND R-4;
SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 5.7.2017 AND 4.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX- A AND B IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioners are residents of Sasalupura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District and they are seeking for a writ of mandamus being issued to respondents 1 and 2 to consider their representations on 05.07.2017 and 04.07.2017 vide Annexures - A and B respectively and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.
3. A perusal of the said representations would indicate that petitioners are agriculturists and have been cultivating properties owned by them which is situated in Sasalapura Village and are residents of said village. On account of construction of Hemavathi Reservation Project, left bank canal 25 cusecs water passes through left bank canal through their village and due to seepage of water through canal, entire village has been declared as “Sheetha Peeditha”. It is the grievance of the petitioners that on account of water seepage it has caused extensive damage to their building and the same has resulted in men and cattle suffering from various diseases and despite bringing these facts to the notice of the authorities, no steps have been taken to pay compensation to them. It is also contended that adjacent villages i.e., Bindanahalli, Nambinahalli, Kallenahalli, Nadanahalli, K.Shingenahalli and Paduvanahalli have also been declared as “Sheetha Peeditha” and the villagers of said villages have already been paid compensation and rehabilitated. On these grounds, seeking relief petitioners have submitted representations vide Annexures-A and B to respondents 1 and 2 and on account of said representation having not been considered, petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under similar circumstances, this Court had issued direction to the respondent – authorities to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and had directed the authorities to pay compensation, if after considering their representation they found that grievance is genuine and bonafide. Hence, he prays for similar direction being issued in the instance case as was done in respect of adjacent villages.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that grievance of the petitioners is similar to which have been to addressed by the respondents - authorities and the fact, this Court had issued directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations. Learned Additional Government Advocate does not admit about the actual extent of damage caused in respect of petitioners’ buildings due to seepage and submits that it is a matter for experts to decide, for which inspection has to be carried out.
6. Keeping in mind the aforestated rival contentions and also the order passed by this Court under similar circumstances in W.P.Nos.29420- 424/2017 and W.P.Nos.29662-666/2017 on 3.10.2017, this Court is of the considered view that a direction if issued to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representations/applications of the petitioners, taking into consideration that joint inspection has already been conducted as per Annexure - C and to pass appropriate orders determining the quantum of compensation including steps to be taken for their rehabilitation if any in accordance with law, it meet the ends of justice. Hence the following:
O R D E R Writ petition stands disposed of directing respondents 1 & 2 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 5.7.2017 and 4.7.2017 vide Annexures-A and B expeditiously, at any rate within eight (8) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and action shall also be taken by them to cause payment of compensation in accordance with law, if it is found that buildings/houses of petitioners have been damaged due to seepage of water.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE RS/* CT:DN