IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.Nos.26381 – 26387/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN :
1 . NAGARAJU S/O LATE SESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 2 . NATARAJU S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT RATHNASANDRA VILLAGE, SIDDARAMAIAH GATE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 3 . OMKARAIAH @ OMAKARESH S/O SIDDARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 4 . SMT.CHANDRAKALA W/O OMKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 5 . SIDDARAMAIAH S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST PETITIONERS No.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT RATHNASANDRA VILLAGE, SIDDARAMAIAH GOTE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 6 . CHIKKAMALLEGOWDA @ CHIKKAMALLAPPA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT GANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, RATHNASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 7 . PUTTARAJU S/O LATE SANNALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 8 . R.VISHWANATH S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 9 . RAMAPPA S/O RANGADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PETITIONERS No.8 & 9 ARE R/AT CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 10 . RANGAPPA S/O RANGADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 11 . C.R.UDAYKUMAR S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PETITIONERS No.10 & 11 ARE R/AT CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADV.) AND :
KUDGI TRANSMISSION LTD., HEAD OFFICE, REP BY ITS SECRETARY/CHAIRMAN, POST BOX No.979, MOUNT POONAMALLE ROAD, MANAKAPPAM, CHENNAI-600089.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2019.) …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 26.04.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT TUMKUR IN C.MISC.NO.254/2018, C.MISC.NO.255/2018, C.MISC.NO. 256/2018, C.MISC.NO.257/2018, C.MISC.NO.258/2018, C.MISC.NO.259/2018 AND C.MISC.NO.260/2018 VIDE ANNEXURES-D, E, F, G, H, J AND K RESPECTIVELY BY HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF THE AWARD AND ALSO NOT REQUIRED TO PAY COURT FEE UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE KARNATAKA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT ON THE PRAYER FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION.
THESE PETITIONS 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 order dated 26.4.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge at Tumkur in C.Misc.Nos.254/2018 to 260/2018 at Annexures D, E, F, G, H, J and K respectively whereby the claim petitions filed by the petitioners have been rejected.
2. The petitioners are claiming to be the owners of respective lands situated in Kusukunte and Rathnasandra villages in Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. It is contended that for the purpose of erecting high tension transmission towers, drawing 765 KV D/C (Hexa Zebra) Narendra (New)-Madhugiri high tension electric supply line towers have been constructed, electricity lines have been drawn resulting in cutting and removing valuable fruit bearing trees, causing extensive damage to the land and crops of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners having lost their valuable lands, made petitions before the Principal Judge at Tumakuru, under Section 67(4) and (5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 16(3) and (4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 seeking for determination of just and reasonable compensation with interest at 12% p.a. for utilization of the lands being dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the District Magistrate.
3. The learned District Judge observing that the copy of the award is not furnished and the court fee is also not paid on the enhancement of compensation claimed, rejected the petitions as not maintainable. Hence, these writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the order of the Cognate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.26390/2018 and connected matters (D.D.28.6.2018) would submit that the question of passing award and payment of court fee on the claim for enhancement of compensation would not arise.
5. Despite the respondent duly served, there is no representation.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
7. The finding of the learned District Judge that the claim petition is not maintainable for want of court fee under Section 48 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and non furnishing of the award is wholly erroneous for the reason that the lands of the petitioners are not acquired for passing of the award. The claim petitions have been filed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for determination of compensation in respect of the dispute regarding the insufficiency of the compensation.
8. That being the situation, the office objections raised regarding the production of the award and payment of court fee ought to have been overruled by the District Judge. But surprisingly, the same has been upheld and the claim petitions are rejected. The very same issue was the subject matter of W.P.No.26390/2018 and allied matters referred to supra, wherein the Cognate Bench has allowed the writ petitions setting aside the order impugned and remanded the matter to the learned District Judge to determine the compensation as contemplated under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned District Judge dated 26.4.2018 at Annexures D, E, F, G, H, J and K are quashed. Matters are remanded to the learned District Judge, Tumakuru to re-determine the compensation in terms of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, after providing an opportunity to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
Writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: