JEEVAPPA BHEEMAPPA MALLAPURA vs. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.68597 OF 2011 (GM-RES-PIL) c/w WRIT PETITION NO.32870 OF 2002 (GM-RES-PIL) In W.P.No.68597/2011: BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI RENUKA D/O KARIBASAPPA GUDDANNAVAR AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE. 2. KUMARI GANGU AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT BOTH PETITIONERS No.1 & 2 ARE R/O KODIHAL VILLAGE, TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMRUTHESH N P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT, REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDHKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

- 2 - 2. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOR REHABILITATION OF VILLAGE NALUVAGILU, SRI K.B.KOLIVAD, MINISTER OF MINOR IRRIGATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 5. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION, HAVERI. 8. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHYATH ENGINEERING SUB -DIVISION, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI : DISTRICT. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HARIHAR POLY FIBERS, KUMAR PATNAM, HARIHARA TALUK : RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT : HAVERI.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, Addl.AG A/W SRI H.R.SHOWRI, AGA FOR R1, R2, R3, R5 & R6; SRI PRAMOD N KATHAVI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT.ANKITHA G SHELKE, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF

- 3 - MANDAMUS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 DIRECTING THEM TO IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME OF REHABILITATION OF VILLAGERS OF NLAUVAGILU VILLAGE TO SY.NO.11 TO 23 OF KODIHAL VILLAGE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE-A IN ITS ENTIRETY; (B) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 8 DIRECTING THEM TO WITHDRAW THE ENTIRE ALLOTMENTS OF THE PLOTS MADE IRREGULARY INDEROGATION ANNEXURE-A, ETC. In W.P.No.32870/2002: BETWEEN: 1. JEEVAPPA BHEEMAPPA MALLAPURA S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA MALLAPURA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 2. G K LALITHA D/O K I GUDDANAVARU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 3. G K ROOPA D/O K I GUDDANAVARU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 4. G K DEEPA D/O K I GUDDANAVARU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 5. G K LAKSHMI D/O K I GUDDANAVARU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. 6. SMT.V G SAVITHRAMMA D/O K I GUDDANAVARU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 7. RUDRACHARI MANACHARI KAMMAR S/O MANACHARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 8. MUDEYAPPA BHEEMAPPA MALLAPURA S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA MALLAPUR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 9. SIDDHYAPPA R KARUR S/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

- 4 - 10. HANUMANTHAPPA HANUMAPPA ADAPPANAVAR S/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 11. HANUMANTHAPPA RAMAPPA KARUR S/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 12. LAKSHMANAPPA RAMAPPA KARUR S/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 13. SOMASHEKAR RAMAPPA KARUR S/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS. 14. NAGAMMA CHANABASAPPA GUTHALA W/O CHANNABASAPPA GUTHALA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 15. SHANTHAMMA RAMAPPA KARUR W/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 16. THRIKURPPA RAMAPPA KARUR S/O LATE RAMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 17. NAGARAJA LINGAPPA HITTALAMANI S/O LATE NINGAPPA SANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 18. PARMESHWARAPPA RAMAPPA KARUR S/O LATE RAMAAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 19. HONNAATHAMMA SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR S/O SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 20. AVALAPPA SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR S/O SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 21. SHEKAPPA SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR S/O SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

- 5 - 22. SHANTHAMMA DURGAPPA CHITTANAHALLI W/O DURGAPPA CHITTANAHALLI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 23. BASAVARAJU HANUMANTHAPPA MAHADEVAPPA SRIGERI, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA MAHADEVAPPA SRIGERI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 24. SHAMBULINGAPPA MURAGAPPA CHANNAGOUDAR S/O MURAGAPPA CHANNAGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 25. NEELAPPA S/O HIRUVA BEGAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 26. CHANDAKKA MALAPPA HOLAKAR W/O VIRUPAKSHA HITTALAMANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 27. CHANDESHAPPA HITTALAMANI S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA HITTALAMANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 28. MAHESHAPPA KANAKAPPA KARUR S/O KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 29. SOMARAJ KENCHANAPPA HITTALAMANI S/O KENCHANAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 30. SHEKARAPPA RAMAPPA DODDAGOUDAR S/O RAMAPPA DODDAGOUDAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 31. THIRUKAPPA HANUMANTHAPPA KARUR S/O HANUMANTHAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 32. HANUMANTHAPPA BHEEMAPPA KARUR S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA KARUR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

- 6 - 33. JAKKANACHARI MANAPPA S/O MANAPPAPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

PETITIONERS No.1 to 33

ARE RESIDENTS OF HEAD POST,

NELAVAGILU, NELAVAILU TALUK,

R.N.R. DISTRICT, HAVERI.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI AMRUTHESH N P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 2. THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOR REHABILITATION OF VILLAGE NALAVAGALA VILLAGE SRI K B KOLIVAD MINISTER FOR MINOR IRRIGATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI. 5. DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI. 6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION, HAVERI. 7. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING DIVISION, HAVERI.

- 7 - 8. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER HARIHARA POLY FIBERS, KUMARA PATNAM, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, Addl.AG A/W SRI H R SHOWRI, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI PRAMOD N KATHAVI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT.ANKITHA G SHELKE, ADVOCATE FOR R9; R7 & R8- served) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDERT ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MANDAMUS AGAINST R2 TO 8 DIRECTING THEM TO IMPLEMENT THE SCHEME OF REHABILITATION OF VILLAGERS OF NELAVAGILU VILLAGE TO SY.NO.11 TO 23 OF KODIHAL VILLAGE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEXURE-A IN ITS ENTIREITY; MANDAMUS AGAINST R2 TO R8 DIRECTING THEM TO WITHDRAW THE ENTIRE ALLOTMENTS OF THE PLOTS MADE IRREGULARLY INDEROGATION TO ANNEXURE-A; DIRECTION AGAINST R2 TO R8 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Both these petitions are public interest litigations (PIL) filed in relation to the subject villages, i.e., Nelavagilu and Kodihal Villages. 2. The reliefs sought for in Writ Petition No.68597 of 2011 are as under:

- 8 - a) Issue writ of mandamus against the respondents 2 to 8 directing them to implement the scheme of rehabilitation of villagers of Nlauvagilu village to sy.no.11 to 23 of Kodihal village, in accordance with Annexure-A in its entirety. b) Issue writ of mandamus against respondents 2 to 8 directing them to withdraw the entire allotments of the plots made irregularly inderogation Annexure-A. c) Issue any other writ/order/direction against respondents 2 to 8 under the circumstances of case as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the ends of justice. 3. The reliefs sought for in Writ Petition No.32870 of 2002 are as under: a) Issue writ of mandamus against the respondents 2 to 8 directing them to implement the scheme of Rehabilitation of villagers of Nelavagilu village to Sy.No.11 to 23 of Kodihal village, in accordance with Annexure-A in its entirety. b) Issue writ of mandamus against respondents 2 to 8 directing them to withdraw the entire allotments of the plots made irregularly inderogation to Annexure-A.

- 9 - c) Issue any other writ/order/direction against respondents 2 to 8 under the circumstances of case as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the ends of justice. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.9- M/s.Harihar Poly Fibres in both the petitions. 5. The material on record discloses that during the pendency of the present petitions, several subsequent events have transpired/ occurred in relation to the subject matter of the petitions. The said subsequent events include the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.109820 of 2016 (GM-RES) dated 15.03.2017 filed by Respondent No.9 – M/s.Harihar Poly Fibers. In the said order, this Court had issued the following directions: 1. The petitioner-industry has agreed to pay Rs.2.61 crore in the year 1993. The price index has escalated manifold based on the cost of living; and hence the amount agreed upon in the year 1993 may not serve the purpose at this point of time. Under the circumstance, instead of calculating logically, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10.0-0

- 10 - crore, including the amount that has been deposited in the year 1993. 2. The respondent-Government, by making use of schemes that are available with it, is directed to put up 432 houses for the displaced villagers and hand it over to the villagers immediately after the completion. 3. After shifting the entire village, the present land is to be handed over to the petitioner for afforestation and the petitioner is directed to afforest the entire area within a period of five years thereafter. The said land shall not be used for any manufacturing activities of the petitioner-industry, but as a lung-space and to maintain ecological balance. 4. Further, if the said land is required by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make representation to the respondent, and it is for the respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders”. 6. Subsequently, in appeals filed by the State as well as Respondent No.9 in Writ Appeal No.100625 of 2017 (GM-RES) and connected Writ Appeal No.100256 of 2017 (GM-RES), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:

- 11 - “25. In the result, the writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner is disposed off in the following terms: (i) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of rupees ten crores to the first respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment in any account of the State Government which would fetch the highest income tax deduction to the petitioner industry; or in the alternative, respondent No.1 to identify the head of account of a particular scheme in respect of which the payment could be made by the petitioner; (ii) The payment of the said amount by the petitioner industry shall be construed as a final payment towards the rehabilitation scheme under the impugned government order and communications; (iii) Other directions issued by the learned Single Judge are not interfered with; (iv) Consequently, the writ appeal filed by the State Government stands disposed off”. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, on instructions submits that the following persons intend to submit a representation ventilating their

- 12 - grievances to the Respondent/State, which is to be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate decision. In Writ Petition No.68597 of 2011, Kumari Renuka and Kumari Gangu are the petitioners. So also in Writ Petition No.32870 of 2002, Jeevappa Bheemappa Mallapura and others are the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions submits that both the petitioners in W.P.Nos.68597- 98/2011 and petitioner Nos.1 to 4, 6, 8, 10 and 29 in W.P.Nos.32870-902/2002 intend to submit representations to the State Government ventilating their grievances. His submission is placed on record.

- 13 - submitting fresh representations to the State Government. Upon submission of the said representations, the State Government shall take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of submission of the said representations, bearing in mind the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.109820/2016 dated 15.03.2017 and W.A.No.100625/2017 c/w W.A.No.100256/2017 dated 18.12.2018 and by ensuring that no prejudice, injury, loss or hardship would be caused to the respondent No.9 – M/s.Harihar Polyfibres in this regard.

Subject to the aforesaid directions and reserving liberty in favour of the aforesaid persons / ten petitioners, the petitions stand disposed of. SD/- CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- JUDGE DH/SRL