Karnataka High Court
Sri M S Mahesha vs State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P. Nos.29862-29892/2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M S MAHESHA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI SURACHAR
AGRICULTURIST
2. SRI M C MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SRI CHANDRACHAR
AGRICULTURIST
3. SRI M V ANANTHKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SRI VENKATESHACHAR
AGRICULTURIST
4. SRI M J KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O SRI M C JUNJE GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
5. SRI INDRESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI THIMME GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
6. SRI MOGANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
S/O SRI JOGANNA GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
7. SRI HANUMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O SRI ANNAPPACHARI
AGRICULTURIST
2
8. SRI GOWDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
9. SRI RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O SRI YALLACHAR
AGRICULTURIST
10. SRI HOTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SRI CHANNEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
11. SRI VENKATESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O SRI THIMMACHARI
AGRICULTURIST
12. SRI RAMACHANDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O SRI ANNAPPACHARI
AGRICULTURIST
13. SMT. PARVATHAMMA (DECEASED)
W/O SRI CHANDRACHAR
BY LRS SRI CHANDRACHAR
S/O SRI YALLACHAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
14. SRI KARIYAPPAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O SRI SAGANEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
15. SMT LEELAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O SRI CHANNEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
16. SMT KAMALAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O SRI SOMACHARI
AGRICULTURIST
17. SMT PRABHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3
W/O SRI MOHANA
AGRICULTURIST
18. SMT. BHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O SRI SHIVANNA
AGRICULTURIST
19. SRI RUDRESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O SRI EREGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
20. SRI M S LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SRI SAGANEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
21. SRI M J GOPALAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI JUNJEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
22. SRI M H YOGESHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI HANUMEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
23. SMT. RUKMINI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O SRI KARIYAPPA GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
24. SRI DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI GANESHACHARI
AGRICULTURIST
25. SRI RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI SOMACHARI
AGRICULTURIST
26. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SRI SAGANE GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
27. SRI M S RAMESHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4
S/O SRI SAGANE GOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
28. SRI MAHESHA M E
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SRI EREGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
29. SRI PRADEEPA M G
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O SRI GIDDEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
30. SRI GIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SRI SIDDEGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
31. SRI VEERABHADREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI MOGANNAGOWDA
AGRICULTURIST
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
MADHWAPURA VILLAGE
AREHALLI HOBLI
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
PIN - 573 115 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C R GOPALASWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
2. DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560001
3. CHIEF ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT
GORUR, ARAKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 120
5
4. CAUVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MYSORE- 570001
5. ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
I/C, YUGACHI RESERVOIR
BELUR, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT 573 115
6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRRICT 573 201
7. CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560 001 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAGADISH MUNDARGI, GA. FOR R1-3 & 5-7
SRI M R C RAVI, ADV. FOR R4)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO
REHABILITE THE PETITIONERS & SAFEGUARD THEIR LIVES BY
PROVIDING SUITABLE SHELTERS AT ANY PLACE NEARBY
MADHWAPURA VILLAGE,AREHALLI HOBLI,BELUR TQ. HASSAN
DIST. VIDE ANN-A1 TO A5.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7. Sri M.R.C.Ravi, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No.4. They are permitted to file memo of appearance/vakalath respectively within four weeks.
6
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to rehabilitate the petitioners and safeguard their lives by providing suitable shelters at any other place near the Madhwapura Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. The representations are at Annexures-A1 to A5.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are residents of Madhwapura village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, and their houses are situate in the vicinity of the Yugachi reservoir. The grievance put forth is that due to the storage of the water in the said reservoir, there is dampness in the area and since their houses are situate in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir, they are not willing to reside in the said place. In that context, the petitioners contend that they be shifted from there to be rehabilitated in a nearby area or to such other land which is available to the Government in lieu of the land which they presently possess therein. It is in that regard, the representations at Annexures-A1 to A5 have been filed by the petitioners. In order to establish 7 that the petitioners are the owners of the land, presently wherein they are residing, the RTC and other documents are produced.
4. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioners, the issue as to whether there is any hardship to reside in the area and as to whether they should be re-habilitated in any other place, are all factual aspects which would have to be considered by the respondents themselves before coming to the conclusion and merit of the claim cannot be decided herein. In any event, the representation made by the petitioners as citizens cannot be ignored by the respondents.
5. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners by carrying out a factual determination either by spot inspection or such other methods by providing opportunity to the petitioners also to put forth their claims before the Authority. In that view, the respondents No.3 and 6 shall act in co-ordination and secure the Officers 8 under them including taking assistance of respondent No. 4 to carryout the inspection and determination.
6. To enable the expeditious consideration, the petitioners shall now file one more copy of the representation along with the supporting documents enclosing a copy of this order with the third and sixth respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents No.3 and 6 shall thereafter instruct their competent officers or carryout inspection in person and determine the claim of the petitioners one way or the other in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date on which representations are re-submitted with a copy of this order.
In terms of the above, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akcbms