IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.8598/2014 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
1 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL (BESCOM), CHITRADURGA-577501.
2 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA, KPTCL, CHITRADURGA-577501. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI N.G.VIJAY KUMAR, ADV.] AND:
M.T.UDAYSHANKAR S/O M.K.THIPPERUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GANNAYAKANAHALLY, ALAMANGALAL HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572144. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI MADHUKAR NADIG, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2013 PASSED IN MISC.64/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A OF THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the judgment and award dated 24.06.2013 passed in Miscellaneous No.64/2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereby it has been held that the respondent is entitled for compensation of Rs.66,902/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment and the petitioners herein have been directed to pay compensation amount along with accrued interest.
2. The respondent had filed the petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 seeking compensation for drawing up of Electrical Lines in his land bearing R.S.No.32 situated at Gannayakanahalli, Aiamangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas. Out of which, 103.74 guntas of land was utilized by the petitioners for transmitting electricity line for drawing up of 220 KV High Tension wire. On considering the claim of the respondent, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga has passed the judgment and award wherein, diminution value of the land is determined at 50% of the market value of the land, which has been impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel Sri. N.G. Vijay Kumar appearing for the petitioners would submit that the diminution value of the land determined at 50% of the total market value is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of ‘THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL VS. DODDAKKA’ reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, where in identical circumstances, the cognate Bench of this Court has determined the Diminution value of the land at 30% of the market value of the area affected.
4. Learned counsel Sri. Madhukar Nadig appearing for the respondent supports the judgment and award impugned.
5. As could be seen from the material available on record, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga has proceeded to determine the diminution value of land at 50% of the total market value. However, no reasons are recorded for arriving at 50% of the total market value. Ex. P.7 only refer to the market value of the land. Indeed, the order of this Court in ‘DODDAKKA’ (Supra) was not available to consider the diminution value at 30% as now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another reported in JT 2010 (10) SC 26 wherein it is observed thus;
“25. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of Judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision”.
7. It is well settled that reason is the heart beat and soul of the order/judgment without which the order/judgment becomes lifeless. In the absence of reasons, it is hard to ascertain the mind of the Court on the basis of which the determination has been made.
8. Hence, this Court deems it proper to set aside the judgment and award impugned dated 24.06.2013 at Annexure-A and restore the proceedings to the file of the learned District Judge to reconsider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in Doddakka case, supra and is ordered accordingly. Both the parties are permitted to lead additional evidence if any, in support of their claim.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR