RAMEGOWDA AND ORS. Vs. TAHSILDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a classic case of a poor displaced farmer knocking at the doors of this Court periodically due to gross inertia exerted by the respondent-State and its authorities. Hemavathi project when visualised, led to large scale displacement of farmers in Hassan District during the year 1970. That project was to harness water of the river Hemavathi and channalised it to different areas in and around the district. As a result, petitioners, amongst others, gave up their lands which were the only source of eking their livelihood for a "public purpose". The State though made a promise during the year 1970 to allot agricultural lands to the displaced farmers, which when not done, led to the institution of a writ petition, whence a learned Single Judge, by order, Annexure-A, directed the State to issue saguvali chits in favour of the petitioners in respect of the lands granted, deliver vacant possession of the same within three months therefrom i.e., from 21-2-2006. In the writ appeal filed by the State, a direction was issued to the State to submit a proposal to the Government of India, respondent 22 for grant of prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, so as to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the State having petitioned the Union of India, though obtained necessary directions, nevertheless, did nothing precious, therefore, petitioners amongst others were constrained to file CCC No. 324 of 2010, whence the Division Bench having noticed the failure of the State to keep up its undertaking to comply with the directions, by order dated 13-10-2010, was constrained to frame charges against the accused.

(2.) It is at that stage the accused in the contempt petition on 19-6-2013 submitted that they delivered possession of the properties to the petitioners, whereafterwards, in the absence of identity of the said lands except for photographs, certain other directions were issued to fix the boundary stones and also fence the land following which the authorities are said to have initiated action. On recording compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge in the proceedings, contempt petition was dropped.

(3.) It is the allegation of the petitioners that despite representations calling upon the respondents to record the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, more appropriately, RTC pahani, when not done, has resulted in this petition for writ of mandamus.