SATHISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 15/6/2023 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project, Hassan, in case No.L.N.D/H.R.P.(D):25/2011-12, at Annexure-A.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the legal representative of Late Kalegowda, who lost his lands due to submergence of his lands under water on the construction of Hemavati/Yagachi/ Vatehole Reservoir Project. In terms of the scheme proposed by the State Government, a person who lost land on account of submergence for the project, would not only be entitled for compensation but also entitled for grant of alternative lands to ensure that the livelihood of such agriculturists are not lost. Accordingly, 4.00 Acers of land in Sy.No.36, Block V, New Sy.No.110 of Doddakalluru Village, Yesaluru Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk was granted. However, several irregularities were found in the matter of allotment of alternative lands. Action was directed by the State Government having regard to such irregularities. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO') has passed the impugned order canceling the grant on the ground that the grantee/petitioner did not obtain 'No Objection Certificate' for having paid the price of the malki/standing trees.

(3.) Having regard to the ground on which the order has been passed, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 11 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1969', for short). Learned Counsel submits that whenever lands are granted under the provisions of the Rules, 1969, the manner in which the trees grown on the granted lands have been disposed is provided for in the said provision. Learned Counsel submits that sub-rule (1) provides that the authorities of the Forest Department have to value all the trees standing on the granted lands. Sub-rule (2) provides that wherever the value of the trees so assessed is not more than Rs.5,000.00 in cases of other cultivable lands, the grantee should be given the option of paying the estimated price; the time to be stipulated by the granting authority and accordingly the trees shall be sold to the grantee. It provides that if the grantee once agrees to pay the value of the trees and defaults to pay the same, it may occasion cancellation of the grant. If the grantee is not willing to pay the value of the trees assessed by the Forest Department, the trees shall be disposed of by the authorities of the Forest Department by tender-cum-auction sale. Sub-rule (3) provides that if the value is more than Rs.5,000.00 the trees shall be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department within one year from the date of the grant of land. The learned Counsel would therefore submit that when admittedly, the value of the standing trees are not assessed in terms of sub-rule (1) and no intimation is given to the grantee/petitioner calling upon to pay the value, there was no occasion for the competent authority to cancel the grant.