ORDER : K.S.HEMALEKHA, J. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No.1-State Government declaring Thyavadahalli “as not seepage effected”, and the proceedings conducted by the High Power Committee dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure-B), which concluded that the village does not require rehabilitation. Brief Facts: 2. The petitioners are residents of Thyavadahalli Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District. Their houses lie adjacent to the Hemavathi Reservoir Project (right main canal 25 cusecs). Due to the continuous seepage from the canal has caused cracks, dampness, structural damage and collapse of several houses. It is stated that the earlier Joint Committees Inspection reports dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009 all confirmed that the village is seepage affected and that the residents faced threat of life, if they continue to reside there. Based on these reports, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) reported 119 “Sheetha Peeditha houses”, and 27 “vacant premises/sites”, by addressing a letter to Deputy Commissioner to pass 4(1) notification. In W.P.No.35032/2018 and connected matters, which is preferred by the petitioners and others, this Court quashed the earlier Government order dated 24.11.2012, which had stated that there was “no seepage” and directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioners’ representation strictly in view of the earlier inspection reports and to pass appropriate order within six months. 3. When this was the state of affairs, instead of acting upon the earlier reports, the State Government constituted a new High Power Committee, who conducted an inspection on 30.11.2019, held meetings on 19.11.2019 and 10.01.2020 and issued the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 and the proceedings dated 23.03.2020 stating “no seepage”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the “seepage” is long-standing and had been repeatedly confirmed by multiple committees and the Government's reversal is arbitrary and contrary to the material on record. It is stated that the adjacent villages such as Bindanahalli, Nambihalli, Kallenahalli, Nadanahalli, K. Shingenahalli and Paduvanahalli, have all been fully rehabilitated, and the denial of similar treatment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the adjacent villages such as Bindanahalli, Nambihalli, Kallenahalli, Nadanahalli, K. Shingenahalli and Paduvanahalli, have all been fully rehabilitated, and the denial of similar treatment violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the impugned orders violate Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, as the seepage effectively force the petitioners to move out of their own houses, that the Government's newly constituted committee was formed without any judicial direction and is contrary to the earlier decisions of this Court, which held that no new committee is required when earlier committees have already inspected and submitted their reports. 5. It is also submitted that the impugned orders also ignore the letter issued by the SLAO to issue 4(1) notification, prior statutory reports and earlier directions of this Court and impugned orders highly unsustainable. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and respondent No.3 in support of their statement of objections contend that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioners earlier filed W.P.Nos.28555-559/2018 and they have allegedly suppressed the said fact. It is stated that the State Government complied with the 2018 direction by appointing a High Power Committee for inspection and concluded that the “seepage” can be prevented by technical measures. Hence, no relocation is needed. It is contended that only six old houses were in dilapidated condition for which Rs.14,16,263/- was already paid and that respondent No.3 issued a tender for Rs.3.67 crores to carry out preventive measures like seepage drain, CC roads, storm water drains, skin wall. But the petitioners obstructed the contract and insisted on compensation. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The record shows that an independent statutory inspection was conducted 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009, which unequivocally held that Thyavadahalli village is a seepage effected village with multiple houses damaged and unsafe for habitation. The petitioners along with other certain petitioners of the same Thyavadahalli village have approached this Court in W.P.No.35032/2018 and connected petitions, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has at paragraph No.11 as under: “11. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.Nos.31857-887/2011 has opined that in respect of Bhimanahalli village the State Government ought to acquire the damaged properties and award compensation to the owners of such properties. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.Nos.31857-887/2011 has opined that in respect of Bhimanahalli village the State Government ought to acquire the damaged properties and award compensation to the owners of such properties. The said direction has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1769/2012 and connected matters, disposed off on 1.4.2013 wherein the Division Bench at paragraphs 14 to 17 has opined as follows in respect of Bhimanahalli village, Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipur Taluk, Hassan. “14. Therefore, the earlier report of High Power Committee in recommending for shifting this village, was rightly accepted by the Government and having accepted such a report, there was no necessity for the Government to appoint a fresh new High Power Committee to go into the details of the same village. Even the New High Power Committee has accepted that the villagers are suffering from several epidemic deceased on account of water logging and seepage, the cattle in the village have been affected and houses have been collapsed. The people have already left the village and constructed new houses in their farm land and at this stage if the Government takes a stand that the land acquisition proceedings have been lapsed on account of not passing an award within the statutory period of two years under the Land Acquisition Act. No court can accept this contention of the Government Advocate. 15. On the contrary, considering the rights of these farmers and villagers and they have been suffering from the year 1984, this Court can even direct the Government to issue a fresh notification as required under the Land Acquisition Act and pass an award and suitably compensate these rustic farmers who have lost their houses where their forefathers have lived. 16. Under Article – 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to every individual and no one can deprived of the right and liberty of life and property. Article–300A guarantees that a property of an individual cannot be deprived of. Though it is not a fundamental right but still it is a constitutional right. 16. Under Article – 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to every individual and no one can deprived of the right and liberty of life and property. Article–300A guarantees that a property of an individual cannot be deprived of. Though it is not a fundamental right but still it is a constitutional right. In the instant case the Government having formed Hemavathi Left Bank Canal at a distance of 250 meters, with 25 cusecs of water capacity and forming a canal in the middle of the village compelled the farmers to leave their houses on account of seepage and water logging and making them to construct houses at different places at their cost cannot be deprived of the value of the residential house. Therefore, the constitutional right of the writ petitioners have been taken away in an indirect method by appointing New High Power Committee after several houses in the village were collapsed. In the circumstance, we do not find any merit in these appeals. 17. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. We issue a direction to the appellants to pass an award in accordance with Law and settle the compensation payable to the persons who lost their houses at Bheemanahalli village of Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipur Taluk, Hassan, within a period of six months from today. ” (Emphasis supplied) 9. This Court directed the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law in view of the reports already submitted by the respective Committees. The Division Bench in W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected matters, observed that the earlier reports recommended for shifting of the Village which was accepted by the Government and having accepted such reports there was no necessity for the Government to appoint a fresh new High Power Committee to go into the details of the same Village. The constitution of a new High Power Committee in the year 2019 and 2020 was another arbitrary action on part on the respondent-State, which this Court had categorically observed that in view of the earlier reports there was no necessity for the Government for having appointing new High Power Committee to go into the details of the said Village. 10. The constitution of a new High Power Committee in the year 2019 and 2020 was another arbitrary action on part on the respondent-State, which this Court had categorically observed that in view of the earlier reports there was no necessity for the Government for having appointing new High Power Committee to go into the details of the said Village. 10. The authority has totally disregarded the multiple directions of this Court including decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected matters, wherein it is specifically stated that the formation of fresh committee is unwarranted fertile and legally impermissible, the manner in which the respondent-State proceeding in this matter, by appointing another new committee is highly arbitrary and the same has been done by ignoring the three earlier inspection reports, 4(1) notification and the binding prior decision of this Court. The impugned orders suffer from non- application of mind, jurisdictional error, and violation of judicial discipline. The petitioners have demonstrated to this Court that the adjacent seepage affected villages were rehabilitated and the State has offered no rational to distinguish the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure-A) and also proceedings conducted by the High Power Committee dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure-B) are hereby quashed. iii. The decisions of the High Power Committee constituted in 2019-2020 is without any judicial mandate, and its conclusion which cannot override the earlier reports, 4(1) notification address by the SLAO and the earlier decision of this Court. iv. The respondents shall reconsider the petitioners’ representation strictly in accordance with the earlier three Committee dated 29.07.2005, 27.02.2006 and 20.03.2009, 4(1) notification and the earlier directions of this Court in W.P.No.35032/2018 and connected matters and W.A.No.1769/2012 and connected matters and shall not consider the High Power Committee proceedings or order dated 23.03.2020. v. The entire exercise shall be complete within six months from the date of receipt of this order. vi. Since the earlier reports disclose the petitioners houses are seepage affected, the respondents shall initiate rehabilitation and compensation in accordance with law, without constituting any fresh committee.