An Omitted Family Member Must Be Considered for Rehabilitation Land Allotment.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are descendants of late Nanjegowda, whose approximately 10 acres of land were acquired for the Hemavathi Reservoir Project.

Under the State’s rehabilitation package, land was to be granted in lieu of land acquired.

Respondent No. 2 applied for grant of alternative land for himself and two brothers, but did not include the petitioner.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted 7 acres 20 guntas to respondent No. 2 and his brothers and rejected the petitioner’s claim because he had not applied.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and sought 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 16 of Hennalli Village.

Respondent No. 2 stated that he had no objection to that grant if the land was available.

Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for alternative land solely because he had not filed an application should be quashed, given his claimed entitlement under the rehabilitation package.

Whether the petitioner could be directed to apply for the remaining 2 acres 20 guntas, with the authority required to consider alternative available land if Sy. No. 16 was unavailable.

The Court referred to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as the basis for the petitioner’s challenge.

It also relied on the State’s rehabilitation package, as described in the order, under which land losers were entitled to land in lieu of acquired land.

The order cites no statute or precedent establishing a further rule; it proceeds on the stated package and the parties’ positions.

The Court accepted that the acquired land belonged to Nanjegowda and that the family was entitled under the rehabilitation package to an extent corresponding to the land acquired.

The grant of 7 acres 20 guntas to respondent No. 2 and his two brothers left 2 acres 20 guntas unaccounted for in the Court’s assessment.

Although the petitioner had not applied, respondent No. 2 did not oppose granting that balance to him if available.

In those circumstances, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to submit an application, while requiring the authority to consider other available land if the specified survey land was unavailable.

The petitioner was directed to apply for 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 16 of Hennalli Village, if available.

The authority was directed to take steps for allotment; if that land was unavailable, it was to identify land in the vicinity, and, if no land was available, consider an unallotted or unutilized commercial site or property.

Compliance was ordered within three months of receipt of the order.