Hosmani Karakappa S/o Basalingappa v. State of Karnataka Rep. By Its Principal Secretary
2019-03-15
L.NARAYANA SWAMY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR
body2019
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. Petitioners are residents of Kengallakadapatti village of Hangund taluk. The said village comes within the backwater area of Basava Sagara dam. Therefore, the State Government acquired 55 acres of land and created two rehabilitation centres at Khajagal and Vargodadinni. The acquisition was made in the year 2013. 3. The petitioners have presented this writ petition contending interaliathat the State Government have not followed the policy framed with regard to formation of rehabilitation centers as per Government Order No.PWD 274 WBM 89 dated 02.03.1990. Accordingly, it is prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be directed to form rehabilitation and resettlement for the residents of the aforesaid villages strictly in accordance with the policy framed for that purpose. 4. Shri Gautham Nettar, learned advocate for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition submits that though the petitioners have approached the State Government, their grievances have not been redressed. 5. Shri Y.H.Vijay Kumar, learned Principal Government Advocate adverting to paragraph No.7 of the statement of objections submits that the main grievance of the petitioners is that, the land identified for rehabilitation centre is ‘black cotton soil’ and high tension power cable runs in the said land. He submits that the adjoining land which is available, also consists of ‘black cotton soil’ and appropriate measures would be taken while constructing the buildings. So far as high tension cables are concerned, he submits that joint inspection was done and the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation has created a buffer zone which gives sufficient safeguard to the residents in the area. 6. Having considered rival contentions and gone through the material on record, we are satisfied that the State have taken adequate measures while forming rehabilitation centre for the displaced persons from the village in question. In the circumstances, this writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.