Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.565 OF 2016 (KLR-LG) IN WRIT PETITION NO.11258 OF 2008 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED No.510, SHANKAR MUTT ROAD HASSAN-573201 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION.
(BY SRI. S. SRIRANGA, ADV.,) AND:
1. M/S. MYSORE ASBESTOS LIMITED … APPELLANT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT #1, CORPORATION BUILDING J.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. KARTHIK SRINIVAS MURTHY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN-573201.
4. THE TAHASILDAR HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HOLENARASIPURA-573211.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR R1 (ABSENT) SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) - - -
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 11258/2008 DATED 13.01.2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.11258 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge, wherein various directions were issued including grant of compensation or alternate land and other directions, the respondent No.4 therein has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has wrongly directed the respondent Nos.2 to 4 - State to determine the compensation liable to be paid to the writ petitioner while in the process of issuing notice to the appellant since the appellant is a beneficiary. Therefore, it is firstly pleaded that the appellant, a beneficiary would be financially burdened in case the compensation is directed to be paid to the writ petitioner. It is further pleaded that if the alternate suggestion by the learned Single Judge for grant of alternate land is accepted by the State, then there will be no grievance.
3. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent.
5. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that there is no ground to entertain the writ appeal at present. If the suggestion for grant of alternate land is to be considered by the State, then obviously the appellant would have no grievance at all. If the other direction is exercised by the State in notionally acquiring the land in terms of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, then the apprehension of the appellant is that it would have to bear the cost of compensation; that such compensation has already been paid by the appellant when the land was granted to it. If the subsequent compensation payable to the writ petitioner exceeds the amounts paid by the appellant to the State is concerned, it is only then there will be a financial injury to the appellant and not otherwise. Therefore, we find that there are too many ifs and buts in the case. It is clearly for the State to decide as to which of the options given by the learned Single Judge has to be complied with. It is only when the said order on acquisition is complied with, then the position with regard to the financial burden by the appellant would be made clear. It is then alone, the appellant would have a cause to agitate before the Court and not until then. Therefore, we find no appropriate ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the writ appeal is disposed off with the aforesaid observations.
Next >