Karnataka High Court
K. Venkateshwar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 14 November, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.202664/2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. K. VENKATESHWAR
S/O K. RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHATRASALA VILLAGE,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
2. K. RAMAPPA
S/O K. HANMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHATRASALA VILLAGE,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
3. K. MALLIKARJUN
S/O K. RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
R/O CHATRASALA VILLAGE,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
2
4. K. MUNYAMMA
W/O K. RAMAPPA
AGED 55 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHATRASALA VILLAGE,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
5. K. HANMANTHAPPA
S/O K. THIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHATRASALA VILLAGE,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
6. K. NARSAPPA
S/O K. THIPPANNA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O CHATRASALA VILLAGE,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR,
ADVOCATE FOR P4 TO P6; SRI K.VENKATESH,
SRI K. RAMAPPA AND SRI K. MALLIKARJUN
I.E., P1 TO P3, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
3
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
3. THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. (MINES AND SSI
AND TEXTILES) COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
4. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
5. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
& FORESTS (IA DIVISION)
PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,
CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003
DELHI, INDIA.
6. THE REGIONAL CONTROLLER
OF MINES (SOUTH ZONES)
INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES
NO. 29 INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
2ND STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD,
4
BENGALURU-560022
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
7. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES
AND GEOLOGY 5TH FLOOR,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
8. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
MINES AND GEOLOGY
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585101
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
9. THE DIRECTOR
(CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES)
THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL
OF MINES SAFETY DGMS
DHANBAD-826001
JHARKHAND, INDIA
10. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF
MINES SAFETY
BELLARY DIVISION,
BELLARY-583104
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
11. THE CONTROLLER OF MINES
(SOUTH ZONE)
INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES,
YESHWANTHAPUR,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
12. THE CHAIRMAN OF CENTRAL
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
5
PARIVESH BHAVAN,
CBD-CUM-OFFICER COMPLEX,
EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
DELHI-110032, INDIA.
13. THE CHAIRMAN OF KSPCB
PARISARA BHAVAN,
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
14. THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT
OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
KALABURAGI-585101
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585101
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
16. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SEDAM DIVISION,
SEDAM-585302
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
17. THE TAHASILDAR
CHINCHOLI TALUKA
KALABURAGI DIST.,
CHINCHOLI-585307
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
18. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
POLICE BHAVAN KALABURAGI
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585101
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
6
19. THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CHINCHOLI TALUK
KALABURAGI DISTRICT,
CHINCHOLI
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
20. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR
KARMIKA BHAVAN
ITI COMPOUND, DAIRY CIRCLE,
BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALURU-560029
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
21. ASSISTANT LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
VEERANDRA PATIL NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585101
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
22. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
DIRECTORATE OF HUMAN
RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
ADGP DCR NO.01
1ST FLOOR, DTE BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
23. SHRI ANOOP KUMAR SAXENA
MANAGING DIRECTOR, OWNER AND
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
OF M/S KALBURGI CEMENT PVT. LTD.,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S VICAT SAGAR
CEMENT PVT. LTD.)
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RELIANCE MAJESTIC ROAD
7
NO.10, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500034
TELANGANA, INDIA
24. GUY SIDOS
CHAIRMAN AND CEO
(VICAT GROUP)
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RELIANCE MAJESTIC ROAD
NO.10, BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD-500034
TELANGANA, INDIA
25. JACQUES MERCERON
VICAT HONORARY CHAIRMAN
(VICAT GROUP REPRESENTATIVE)
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
RELIANCE MAJESTIC ROAD
NO.10, BANJARA HILLS
HYDERABAD-500034
TELANGANA, INDIA
26. CH. KODANDA RAM REDDY
GENERAL MANAGER HR OF
M/S KALBURGI CEMENT PVT. LTD,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
CHATRASALA VILLAGE
TQ. CHINCHOLI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585320
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 TO 11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.23 TO 26 HEREIN I.E.,
8
KALBURGI CEMENTS PVT. LTD., TO PAY CROP DAMAGES
COMPENSATION AMOUNT AT THE MINIMUM RATE OF @
RS.1,00,000/- (ONE LAKH RUPEES) PER ACRE PER YEAR
FROM 2008 ONWARDS TO TILL 2017 (TOTAL 10 YEARS
INCLUDING 2008 AND 2017) TO ALL THE PETITIONERS'
FIELDS OF ALL SURVEY NOS. SHOWN IN ABOVE TABLE,
(TOTAL AREA OF FIELDS NEARLY 43 ACRES) ALONG WITH
INTEREST FOR DELAY AS PER ANNEXURE- F1 AND F2 AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for official respondents at Sl.Nos.1 to 11. Notice to other respondents is not necessary for the following reasons.
2. The petitioners claim to be the neighbouring land owners of respondent No.23 to 26, all situated at Chatrasala village of Chincholi Taluk, 9 Kalaburagi district. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the private respondents to pay damages as compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre from the year 2008 to till date; to direct the private respondents to provide permanent employment to each petitioners' family; to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.3 crores for adult petitioners and Rs.5 crores for senior citizen petitioners for the mental agony, harassment and torture caused to them; to suspend permission/clearance granted to the private respondents who have established factories, etc.,
3. On hearing learned counsel Sri Sandeep Vijayakumar who appears for some of the petitioners and Sri K. Venkatesh, party-in-person, petitioner No.1, this Court finds that memorandum of writ petition clearly shows that the private respondents have established the industry way back in the year 10 2008. There is no claim made on behalf of the petitioners that the said respondents have utilized the properties belonging to the petitioners or encroached upon them. However, it is sought to be contended that in the year 2012, the private respondents herein had given an undertaking before the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi that they would provide fence to their land and pay compensation in case of damages sustained by the neighbouring land owners due to the activities of the industry. It is therefore clear that if the petitioners seek damages at the hands of the private respondents who have established their industry after taking necessary permission and clearance, the petitioners are required to approach a civil Court, establish the extent of damage suffered by them and only then can the petitioners seek compensation.
11
4. It is by now well established that in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally damages are not awarded since the assessment of damages cannot be done in writ proceedings.
5. The other claim of the petitioners that the private respondents are required to provide permanent employment to at least one person in the family of the petitioners and bear educational expenses, etc., can be sought by the petitioners only if a right is vested in them. The petitioners are unable to point out to any provision of law or any scheme under which the private respondents are duty bound to provide employment to the petitioners or bear educational expenses of the members of the petitioners' family.
12
6. Having regard to all these evident factors, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. As stated earlier, if the petitioners seek damages at the hands of private respondents, they will have to approach the competent civil Court.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR