IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.18508 & 22133 – 22134/2014 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN :
1 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE AT KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HRD) 2 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501.
3 . ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.KRISHNANANDA GUPTA, ADV.) AND :
1 . SMT.ALIKAMMA W/O SRI YARRIMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 2 . SRI CHINNAPPA S/O SRI YARRIMADAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST BOTH ARE R/AT MALLURAHALLY, NAYAKANAHALLY HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHI HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADV.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D DATED 19.07.2013 PASSED IN MISC. No.195/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, BY ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Misc.No.195/2010 dated 19.7.2013 whereby total compensation of Rs.1,25,225/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment has been awarded for the utilization of the lands by the KPTCL in drawing high tension circuit electricity lines.
2. The petitioners-claimants are the owners of agricultural irrigated land bearing R.S.No.7/P5 to an extent of 17 acres 20 guntas situated at Bharamasagara village, Nayakanahatty Hobli, Challakere Taluk. On utilization of the said land for drawing high tension circuit electricity line including corridor land both left and right side from the center point, the KPTCL has paid an amount of Rs.5,681/- towards compensation for causing damages to the crop. Being aggrieved, the claimants had preferred Misc.No.195/2010 before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,25,225/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment.
3. Being aggrieved, KPTCL is before this Court mainly on the ground that the diminution value of 50% of the market value of the land determined by the learned District Judge is on the higher side. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Executive Engineer, KPTCL Vs. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 Kar 677.
4. Learned counsel for the KPTCL would submit that the diminution value determined at 50% has to be reduced to 30% in conformity with the order of this Court in Doddakka’s case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the actual extent of the land utilized has not been properly appreciated by the learned District Judge. Merely on surmises and conjunctures, it has been held that the KPTCL has used 10140 square meters of land including corridor area without there being any material evidence in support of the same. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in the case of D.K.Thimmanna Vs. Executive Engineer passed in W.P.No.40344/12 c/w W.P.No.40343/12 (D.D.31.7.2017).
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is pertinent to note that no reasons have been recorded by the learned District Judge to determine the loss of diminution value of the land at 50%. Similarly it would be appropriate for the learned District Judge to award compensation considering the parameters set down by this Court in D.K.Thimmanna’s case regarding the extent of land utilized by the KPTCL.
7. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned District Judge to re-consider the matter in the light of the orders of this Court in Doddakka and Thimmanna’s case referred to above. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Parties are at liberty to lead evidence, if any. The learned District Judge shall consider the matter afresh and take a decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
Writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: