Karnataka High Court
Shri Siddegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NOS.44199-44208/2013 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.SHRI SIDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O NANJEGOWDA,
R/AT BEECHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
2.SHRI. HANUMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
R/AT GANJIGERE VILLAGE,
KUNDUR HOBLI, ALURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
3.SHRI. RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O VENKATEGOWDA,
GANGJIGERE VILLAGE,
KUNDURU HOBLI, ALURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
4.SHRI. RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT BASAVANAHALLI GANJIGERE POST,
KUNDURU HOBLI, ALURU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
5.SHRI.MALLESH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O BASAPPA,
R/AT NIDUGANI,
HALLIMYSORE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
2
6.SMT. AKKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
W/O SOMEGOWDA,
R/AT BEECHENAHALLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
7.SHRI A.N. SAROJAMMA
W/O A.M. MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
C/O S.M DORESWAMY,
K.H.B. COLONY, MIG 67,
ADAGURU POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
8.SMT. RUKMINI
W/O MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
BEECHENAHALLI, HALEKOTE HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
9.NINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE RANGE GOWDA,
RESIDING AT FRONT OF VATEVALE OFFICE,
HALUR, POST: HALUR,HASSAN DISTRICT
10.NINGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
W/O LATE DYAVE GOWDA,
REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A HOLDER,
SHRI. S.M. DORESWAMY S/O. MARI GOWDA,
K.H.B COLONY, MIG 67, ADAGURU POST,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: M.RAGHAVENDRACHAR, ADV.)
AND:
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3
2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY,
ENVIRONMENT, NO.107, 4TH FLOOR,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 432.
4.THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA-571 432.
5.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA-571 432.
6.THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT,
REHABILITATION, HASSAN DISTRICT-571 102.
7.THE TAHASILDAR,
K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.
8.THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RURAL POLICE STATION,
K.R.PETE RURAL,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: T.L.KIRAN KUMAR, AGA)
THESE W.Ps ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 21.11.2012 ISSUED BY DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER MANDYA VIDE ANN-P AND IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERMENT OF
KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 24.11.2012 VIDE
ANN-Q, QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 26.11.2012
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.7 AND RESTORE THE LANDS
IN SY.NO.1 OF B.B.KAVAL, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
VIDE ANN-S1 TO S8
4
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Order dated 21/11/2012 of respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya, (Annexure-P) and the order of respondent No.1 - Prl. Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department dated 24/11/2012 (Annexure-Q) are assailed in these writ petitions.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Thippanahalli Village, Halur Taluk and Garigatna Village, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District. They owned certain lands in the aforesaid villages. That the State Government had acquired their lands for the purpose of Hemavathi Reservoir Project (hereinafter referred to as "project" for the sake of convenience) and water canals have been built for the purpose of irrigation of surrounding lands. The lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and compensation was also awarded to them. The State Government decided to also rehabilitate the displaced persons such as the petitioners and other similarly displaced persons by providing 5 alternate lands. In the year 1972, a notification dated 23/09/1972 was issued for rehabilitation of the displaced persons of the Hemavathi Reservoir Project. The petitioners and others who are similarly situated are the persons who are displaced on account of the project. By the notification issued in the year 1972, reserving lands in K.R.Pet, Pandavapura and Nagamangala Taluks of Mandya District, approximately inter alia, 500 acres of land was earmarked for the rehabilitation of the petitioners and the other similarly situated persons who had lost their lands on account of Project. A copy of the gazette notification dated 23/09/1972 is produced at Annexure-A. In that notification at Item No.39, it is stated that 500 acres of land have been reserved for the purpose of grant to the displaced persons of the Project at Bellibettada Kaval Village in Pandavapura Taluk. It is also contended that by order dated 24/06/1971, 4 acres of dry land had been decided to be granted to each displaced person who had lost his land and a copy of the Government Order dated 24/06/1971 is produced as Annexure-B. Annexures-C to C-40 are the copy of the grant orders, OM sketch, and saguvali chit issued to the petitioners and other similarly 6 placed persons who had granted the lands. Possession of the land is stated to have been also granted and petitioners have been in cultivation of their respective extents.
3. When the matter stood thus, there had been survey of the lands falling within various areas by the Department of Forest and their officials noted that the lands in question viz., Sl.No.39 of Bellibettada Kaval measuring 500 acres was a part of a forest area. Therefore, on 19/07/2000, the State Government took a decision that except 500 acres of land, which was reserved for the displaced persons, the remaining areas could be transferred to the Forest Department. The order dated 19/07/2000 is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, issued an official memorandum dated 10/08/2000 permitting that, in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village apart from 500 acres, the remaining extent of 2,015 acres of land be transferred to the Forest Department (Annexure-E). Subsequently, there was exchange of correspondence between the Revenue Department as well as forest officials on the aspect of grant of 500 acres of land to the displaced persons. It is 7 further stated that at the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary on 22/06/2001, in which certain officers of the Forest and Revenue Department participated, it was resolved to relook into Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval to see whether rehabilitation could be done in a portion of the area and retain the remaining forest area intact. A copy of the proceedings dated 22/06/2001 of the said meeting is produced at Annexure-G. This was followed by another meeting held on 03/07/2001 under the Chairmanship of the 3rd respondent Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District. In that meeting it was recommended that land measuring 500 acres of Bellibettada Kaval should be surveyed and identified for being handed over to the displaced farmers to an extent of 4 acres each, after obtaining orders from the Department of Forest, Environment and Ecology. The proceedings of the meeting held on 03/07/2001 are produced at Annexure-H. This was followed by a meeting held in the chambers of the Principal Secretary, Forest and Ecology on 13/05/2003, wherein a decision was taken that Deputy Conservator of Mysore, should identify one or two plots to an extent of 500 acres of land in Sy.No.1 of 8 Bellibettada Kaval, so as to ensure that such lands should be on the lower side of the irrigational channel. It was also proposed that the clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 must be obtained from the Central Government before the lands are granted to the displaced persons.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that till date no saguvali chits of the grants made to the petitioners have been issued and that they have been left in the lurch.
5. Petitioners have further placed reliance on certain orders of this Court at Annexures-J to N passed in several writ petitions filed since the year 2009 onwards to contend that in respect of Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village and also with regard to other lands, directions have been issued to allot lands to the persons similarly situated as the petitioners and that they have also been complied with. But insofar as, the petitioners herein are concerned, no steps were taken to allot any land in Bellibettada Kaval Village.
6. When the matter stood thus, the third respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, allegedly on the orders of 9 this Court in CCC No.1220/2012 filed by 1st petitioner herein and others wrote to the first respondent to allot alternate lands in respect of certain persons. That communication is dated 21.11.2012 and is produced at Annexure-P. On the basis of that communication, a decision was taken to cancel the allotment of land made in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval village and to grant alternative lands in Sy. No.14 of Kikkeri Hobli, Margonahalli Village, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. It is the case of the petitioners that by this, the original grant/allotment of land in Sy. No.1 of Bellibattada Kaval village has been cancelled as per Official Memorandum dated 24.11.2012 which is at Annexure-Q. Annexures-P and Q are assailed by the petitioners in these writ petitions. Subsequently, notices dated 26.11.2012 were issued to the petitioners at Annexues-S-1 to S-8 and those notices are also assailed by the petitioners in these writ petitions. By those notices petitioners were requested to receive possession of the alternative lands at Sy.No.14 of Margonahalli village. According to the petitioners, they have visited the aforesaid land and found that they are in unauthorized occupation of several cultivators and that 10 survey number is mired in litigation. The petitioners therefore got legal notices issued to the Tahsildar and copies of the same are at Annexure-R to R7, dated 29.11.2012. The plaint and orders of status-quo granted in O.S.No.630/2012 and O.S. No.631/2012 pertaining to Sy.No.14 of Margonahalli village are produced at Annexures-T1 to T4 to the writ petition.
7. The grievance of the petitioners essentially is that having lost their lands for the purpose of irrigation project and the State Government allotting lands to them by way of rehabilitation, has not taken steps to actually grant possession of those lands. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court assailing Annexures-P and Q as well as the notices at Annexures-S1 to S8 by contending that the petitioners must be allotted the lands in Sy.No.1 of Bellibethada Kaval Village as has been done to other similarly displaced persons and that alternative lands allotted under Annexure-Q cannot be accepted by the petitioners.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M. Raghavendrachar and learned Addl. Government 11 Advocate, Sri. T.K. Kiran Kumar, who appears for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and perused the material on record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the documents annexed to the writ petitions to contend that the State Government must be directed to implement the notification dated 23.9.1972 as well as the subsequent decision taken by the State Government for the allotment of lands at Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village. The said submission was supported by placing reliance on order dated 30th November 2007 passed in W.A.No.1020/2007 and other orders in the writ petitions annexed to the petitions. It was hence contended that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to grant the lands to the petitioners herein so that there is rehabilitation of the petitioners in accordance with the Government order dated 23.9.1972.
10. Per-contra, learned AGA stated that the petitioners have approached this Court belatedly and that the survey of the lands have to be made; that petitioners herein are not satisfied with what has been granted by order dated 24.11.2012 Annexure-Q. They cannot insist that lands be 12 granted in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village as those lands are forest lands and hence no direction can be issued to the respondents to allot the lands in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village.
11. These writ petitions have been pending since the year 2010 onwards. These writ petitions were listed before me even in the year 2013 on several occasions. Except seeking adjournments, the State Government has not come up with any proposal to ensure that these petitioners were granted lands either in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village in terms of the order dated 23.9.1972 or in any other area which is free from dispute and encumbrance. It is noted for over four decades these petitioners have lost their lands for the purpose of the irrigation project which has only enhanced the prospects of other farmers who have benefitted from the project. But the persons such as the petitioners herein who have made a sacrifice so as to make available their lands for a public purpose have not been rehabilitated for the last four decades. It is seen that the State Government has not taken any concrete action after the initial issuance of notification insofar as these petitioners are concerned. In this regard, a perusal of the 13 various documents annexed to the writ petitions only makes it apparent that the State Government had infact decided as early as in the year 1972 to grant lands in various survey numbers including Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village to the displaced persons. The gazette notification dated 23/9/1972 clearly states that the State Government has set apart the lands mentioned in that notification for being granted to the displaced persons of Hemavathi reservoir project. It is noted that issuance of the gazette notification has not resulted in rehabilitation of the petitioners. The State Government has infact granted some portions of Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village to various persons. That apart wherever the displaced persons felt that they had not been granted any land under the rehabilitation scheme, they have approached this Court and lands have been granted to them in various survey numbers. Where lands are in forest areas the State Government has obtained clearance (F.C. clearance) from the Central Government and then allotted the lands to some of the displaced persons.
12. It is also noticed that the State Government is conscious of the fact that Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval is 14 forest land and therefore after enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, permission of the Central Government had to be obtained prior to granting any portion of the land in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village. Infact, during the course of submission, it was also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of certain persons, the State Government had also recommended to the Central Government and after obtaining F.C.clearance, has granted certain portions of the very same survey number.
13. In fact, in the case of Sri. Girish H.E. & others V/s. State of Karnataka & others (W.P.No. 10319/2013 (GM-MM-S) & W.P.No.14039-47/2013) disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 25/10/2013 the ramification of the expression "forest" under the provisions of the Central Act as well as State Act, as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad V/s. Union of India & others (AIR 1997 SC 1228) have been referred to and need to obtain F.C.clearance under Section 2 of the Central Act has been explained. In that view of the matter, the State Government would have to take 15 F.C.clearance from the Central Government before handing over possession of Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village to the petitioners herein, even though the said land has been earmarked for their benefit under the 1972 Notification.
14. In the compilation of the documents submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing, insofar as Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village is concerned, a perusal of the order of this Court in various writ petitions would make it apparent whenever the displaced persons have approached this Court, State has taken steps to grant lands. In W.P.Nos.15707-15708/2009 disposed of on 8/10/2009, it has been noted by this Court, that infact 'saguvali' chit had been issued in favour of those persons and subsequently the khatha of the lands covered under the saguvali chit was also transferred in their names and they were put in possession after conducting mahazar. Recording the same, writ petitions were disposed of on 8/10/2009. Similarly, W.P.Nos.33435- 447/2009 was disposed of on 8/2/2010 on the basis of the submissions made by the learned AGA and subsequently in W.A.No.2479/2010 and connected matters, a Division Bench of this Court had opined that the writ appeals were 16 not maintainable as writ petitions were disposed of on the submission made by the learned AGA. Those matters were also in respect of grant of lands to the displaced persons, such as the petitioners herein. Subsequently, State had filed R.P.Nos.787-799/2012 assailing the order dated 8.2.2010 referred-to-above. Those review petitions were also disposed of by holding that there was no error in the order and that the Government had to take a decision as to whether it would obtain F.C. clearance under Section 2 of the Conservation of Forests Act, 1980 from the Central Government and thereafter to take steps for granting of the land in the forest areas.
15. Infact, in another batch of writ appeals filed by these very petitioners (W.A.Nos.15030-037/2011) against the order dated 30.6.2011, which had dismissed their writ petitions, the Division Bench of this Court has opined as follows at paras 6 and 7:-
"6. The Government cannot have any objection for the reasonable demand made by the appellants, because they are considering them as displaced persons land has been granted to them by the government at Bellibettada Kaval village, K.R. Pete Taluk. If on account of inter-17
se dispute between the Revenue Department and Forest Department, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer or Revenue Department to find out alternate lands and put them in possession so as to rehabilitate the persons who were displaced about 30 years back"
7. Considering that the appellants are displaced persons and the Government has failed to rehabilitate them for last four decades, we have to direct the Government to find out an alternative land as the land allotted to them, is under litigation on account of the obstacles raised by the various department, to allot any alternate land which is free from all litigation within a period of three months from today. We direct the Government to comply with the directions of this Court and report the same, failing which the matter will be viewed seriously since the appellants have lost their lands and the lands have granted for the purpose or rehabilitation about 40 years ago."
16. This Court had categorically directed the State Government to comply with the directions of this Court and to grant alternative land, which was free from litigation within a period of three months from 28.6.2012. Infact CCC(Civil) Nos.1220-1227/2012 were filed by these 18 petitioners for compliance of the order dated 28.6.2012. Those contempt petitions were disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners herein to seek other remedies. It is pursuant to the orders passed in W.A.Nos.15030- 15037/2011 and CCC(Civil) No.1220-1227/2012 that a communication at Annexure-P was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya to the first respondent herein, pursuant to which, Annexure-Q order has been passed dated 24/11/2012 granting alternative lands to the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that those alternative lands granted in Sy.No.14 of Markonahalli village are under litigation and that the State Government has not complied with the directions issued by this Court in W.A.No.15030-15037/2011. It is under these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are willing to await the decision of the Central Government with regard to FC clearance that has to be obtained under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and thereafter get the land in Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village, which have been granted to them, be allotted to them by handing over possession.
19
17. In this regard, reliance was placed on order dated 30/11/2007 in W.A.No.1020/2007 wherein the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court while considering the case of the displaced persons similar to the petitioners herein i.e., who have had lost the lands for the purpose of the same Project were to be allotted lands in Sy.Nos.41 and 42 of Nidanur village which were under the jurisdiction of the forest department. On that premise, this Court, while referring to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V. Union of India and others (AIR 1997 SC 1228) directed that State Government and its officers must take steps to get F.C.clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Infact paragraph 9 of the said order is extracted as under
for immediate reference:-
"The Writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-
The State Government and its officers who are the appellants are hereby directed to submit the proposal in this regard to the 22nd respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment to the 22nd respondent with a request to it to grant prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest 20 (Conservation) Act, 1980, to comply with the directions issued by this Court in these proceedings. The Union of India-22nd respondent herein shall consider the same in the light of the observations made in this judgment with reference to the Fundamental Rights of the above contesting respondents as guaranteed under the Constitution of India, within three months' time from the date of receipt of the proposal from the State Government keeping in view the observation made in this judgment, the same shall be communicated to the appellants in turn, they shall comply with the directions issued in the order of the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition which is impugned in this appeal."
The State Government has not assailed the aforesaid order. Infact, petitioners' counsel has stated that subsequent to the order of this Court, the State Government took steps to get FC clearance and several persons were allotted lands in Sy.No.41/7 of Nidanur Village.
18. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that similar directions must be issued to the respondents so that in respect of Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village, the State Government could take steps to 21 obtain clearance under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 from the Central Government and thereafter to allot the lands to the petitioners as has been notified in September 1972 and considered by various Departments of the Government thereafter. It is noted from the order of the Division Bench dated 30.11.2007 in W.A.No.1020/2007 that a direction was issued to the State Government and its officers to submit a proposal within a time frame to the Central Government and the Central Government was directed to consider the said proposal again within a time frame and thereafter to act on the basis of the orders of the Central Government. Instead of taking similar steps insofar as these petitioners are concerned, the State Government has issued Annexure-Q order allotting land of Sy.No.14 of Markonahalli village which the petitioners contend is in litigation and that there are suits pending before the Civil Court in respect of that survey number.
19. Thus, the only inference that can be drawn is that the promise held out by the State Government through the notification issued on 23/9/1972 has not been fulfilled for over four decades. It may be true, in the interregnum on account of the Central Government's intention to conserve 22 and preserve forest areas, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted and several orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court may have delayed allotting Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village to the petitioners herein. Be that as it may. The Central Act as well as order of the Hon'ble Supreme court or this Court do not in any way completely bar grant of forest land as such. Infact various dicta have been to the effect that procedure prior to grant of forest land must be followed. It is in that context that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 becomes relevant in respect of non-forest activity. The approval of the Central Government is a mandatory requirement before the State Government can allot forest areas for a non-forest purpose. The State Government is also aware of this fact and infact this aspect of the matter is discussed as early as in the year 2000. But, subsequently, a decision was taken to allot lands in Sy.No.14 of Markonahalli village instead of taking steps to get FC clearance insofar as Sy.No.31 of Bellibettada Kaval Village is concerned. This is the heart of the matter and petitioner's grievance rests on this aspect. 23
20. Although in these proceedings, a number of opportunities were given to the State Government to take a positive stand in the matter, bearing in mind, the earlier decision taken by forest department or the Government, in the absence of there being any response, this Court is left with no alternative except to direct the respondent authorities to give effect to the gazette notification dated 23.9.1972 insofar as item No.39 is concerned and also to the various decisions taken by Department of the State Government concerning Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village for the purpose of allotment of those lands insofar as these petitioners are concerned.
21. It is needless to observe that before any possession of the lands are to be given to the petitioners, the requirement under law, one of which is getting FC clearance from the Central Government under the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 shall be adhered to. Therefore, respondents are directed to take steps to seek F.C.clearance insofar as Sy.No.1 of Bellibethada Kaval Village is concerned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and submit a proposal to the Central 24 Government for its consideration and approval under the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is needless to observe that even though the Central Government is not arrayed as respondent in these proceedings, if such a proposal is sent to the latter, it would consider it in all earnestness having regard to the fact that the State Government has now been directed to implement the decision which had taken over four decades ago in the year 1972. Infact, when certain persons who have lost their lands for the purpose of Hemavathi Reserviour Project have been granted lands including in forest areas after obtaining the F.C.clearance, the same action could have been taken with regard to these petitioners also. The State cannot pick and choose from amongst its citizens for the purpose of conferring benefits under a scheme which it has formulated for the rehabilitation of the land-losers. If the proposal is sent by the State Government to the Central Government within the aforesaid time frame, the Central Government should consider that within a reasonable period and thereafter depending on the orders to be passed by the Central Government, the State Government to take steps further 25 so far as Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village is concerned.
22. Having regard to the aforesaid directions, it would not be necessary to interfere with Annexures-P and Q for the time being. It would also not be necessary to quash the notices at Annexures-S1 to S8. It is needless to observe that if the Central Government grants approval for allotment of Sy.No.1 of Bellibettada Kaval Village to the petitioners and others similarly placed persons, steps would be taken to allot the same in right earnest to the petitioners. At that stage, the petitioners cannot state that they are not interested in those lands and that they would seek alternative lands. This Court, at this stage, can only hope and trust that the concerned authorities would act in all earnestness, so that the promise held out by the State to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are not rendered meaningless and they do not get disillusioned any further. The petitioners have been sustaining themselves all along with the hope that the State would be a source of succour for all the sacrifices that they have made and hence, the time has long passed for the State to act as a Welfare State and rehabilitate the petitioners as 26 promised by it, without allowing lapse of further time in any redundant acts as far as these petitioners are concerned.
23. Writ petitions stand disposed in the aforesaid terms.
I.A. 1/14 for early hearing is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE S* / *mn