IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.10628-10630/2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR. MATHEW KURIAN SON OF MR.K.J.KURIAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT "POTTAMKULAM HOUSE & ESTATE" MALDARE POST, SIDDAPURA, VIRAJPET TALUK-571218, KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. MRS. ANUYA ANNA STEPHEN WIFE OF MR. STEPHEN THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT "POTTAMKULAM HOUSE & ESTATE" MALDARE POST, SIDDAPURA, VIRAJPET TALUK-571218, KODAGU DISTRICT.
3. MRS. DIVYA CICILY CLIFFORD WIFE OF CLIFFORD ANTONY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT "POTTAMKULAM HOUSE & ESTATE" MALDARE POST, SIDDAPURA, VIRAJPET TALUK-571218, KODAGU DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI.
2. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIA SARAI, NEW DELHI-110016 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.P YOGANNA, HCGP. FOR R1 SRI CHIRISTOPHER, ADV. FOR SRI J HUDSON SAMUEL, ADV. FOR R2) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 05.12.2014 VIDE ANN-J1, J2 AND J3, PASSED BY R-1 AND DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.12.2014 VIDE ANN-K.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are before this Court assailing the orders dated 05.12.2014 as at Annexures-J1 to J3 to the petitions. The petitioners are also seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure-K).
2. The petitioners are the owners of the lands in Maldare Village, Virajpet Taluk, Coorg District. Respondent No.2 has installed the tower and power line over the lands belonging to the petitioners. The lands as owned by petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 herein have been referred to in Para No.2 of the petitions. Respondent No.2 accordingly had obtained necessary orders from respondent No.1 for the purpose of drawing the power cables. In that regard, the orders as passed are at Annexures-J1 to J3 to the petitions.
3. In that circumstance where the power cable has already been drawn by respondent No.2, the issue would be with regard to the petitioners being adequately compensated in accordance with law. Hence the need to quash the orders at Annexures-J1 to J3 would not arise. However with regard to the compensation being payable to the petitioners, respondent No.2 through their objection statement have relied on the document at Annexure-R5 to indicate that the amount as indicated therein has been fixed as the compensation and the amount as determined by the respondents has been paid to the petitioners. The petitioners are however dissatisfied with the amount paid to them and it is in that light, even before the amount as determined was paid to them, the petitioners had submitted their representation as at Annexure-A. In that view, the question at this point boils down to the appropriate compensation that this required to be paid.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the determination of the compensation as made and relied upon by respondent No.2 at Annexure-R5 is not in accordance with law, the provision as contained in Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘the Act’ for short) would indicate that the sufficiency or otherwise of the compensation as payable is ultimately to be determined by the District Judge in terms thereof.
5. Therefore in that circumstance, I am of the opinion that reconsideration by the respondents with regard to compensation would also be a futile exercise as in any event, the right of the petitioners would be decided by the District Judge.
6. Hence, leaving open the question with regard to sufficiency of compensation, the petitioners are granted the liberty of filing a petition as provided under Section 16(3) of the Act before the competent District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate. If such petition is filed by the petitioners, the Competent Court is directed to entertain the same, issue notice to respondent No.2 herein, secure all particulars in that regard relating to determination of compensation and thereupon appropriate compensation payable to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. The decision shall be taken on merits without reference to the delay. All contentions in that regard are left open.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms