IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.49187/2016 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
SRI A S KATTI MANDAIAH S/O. LATE. SUBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, KURCHI VILLAGE AND POST, SOUTH KODAGU- 571217, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTICT, ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGLORE-560 001 2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI WILD LIFE DIVISION, MADIKERI-571201 3. THE AGRICULTURAL DIRECTOR VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236 (BY SRI DILDHAR SHIRALLI, HCGP. FOR R1-3) ... RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN A4 COMPENSATION.CR-09/2015-16 ON THE FILE OF R-2 AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO PAY BALANCE COMPENSATION OF RS.44,100/- BY MODIFYING THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. A4 COMPENSATION.CR-09/2015-16 DTD:9.2.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to pay the balance compensation of Rs.44,100/- by modifying the notification dated 09.02.2016 at Annexure-B to the petition.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.113(a) measuring 2 acres situate at Kurchi Village, Shrimangala Taluk,. The case of the petitioner is that the paddy crop which had been grown by the petitioner in the said land was destroyed by wild elephants, as such he is entitled to be appropriately compensated. The respondents on taking into consideration the Circular dated 30.04.2011 has ordered payment of compensation through the notification at Annexure-B to the petition. Since according to the petitioner the compensation as ordered therein is inadequate, he is before this Court seeking that appropriate compensation be directed to be paid.
3. Respondents have filed their objection statement.
The respondents have also relied on the Circular dated 30.04.2011 to justify their action and insofar as the quantity relating to the loss said to have been suffered by the petitioner, the report and the mahazar at Annexures-R.2 and R.3 are relied on. It is in that light contended that the compensation as assessed and paid by them to the petitioner is adequate and a consideration in the manner as sought by the petitioner would not arise.
4. In the light of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, two aspects that would arise for consideration is as to whether the rates as indicated in the Circular dated 30.04.2011 would be uniformly applied for the loss suffered in the later years as well. The second aspect of the matter is that even if the appropriate rate for the relevant year is taken into consideration, the quantity for which the loss is required to be assessed.
5. On the first aspect, the same need not detain this Court for long inasmuch as at an earlier instance when the loss had been suffered by the petitioner during the year 2012-13, he was before this Court in W.P.No.56167/2013. This Court while taking into consideration the method as adopted by the respondents by relying on the very same Circular dated 30.04.2011 whereunder the price of paddy of the year 2009 had been taken into consideration, was of the opinion that the same would not be justified and the actual price of paddy during the year when loss is suffered is required to be taken. If that be the position, when the petitioner is before this Court contending that the loss suffered by the petitioner is during the year 2014-15, the rate of paddy prevailing during the said period is required to be taken into consideration and the compensation is required to be paid. Therefore, to the said extent, it is held that the method as adopted by the respondents is not justified insofar as taking the price of the year 2009.
6. Insofar as the second aspect, it is seen that while determining the compensation for the quantity of 15 quintals, the respondents have relied on the report at Annexure-R.2 and the mahazar at Annexure-R.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt seeks to rely on the internal communication dated 04.11.2015 wherein it is indicated that during the period 2014-15, 30 quintals in 3 acres had been destroyed. To that extent since it is indicated that 50% of the crop was destroyed, the reference as contained in the mahazar would be relevant. However, if the petitioner has any material to indicate that a larger area had been cultivated and the loss suffered is to a larger extent than 15 quintals and if any documents are produced in that regard, the same shall be taken into consideration and the quantity shall be assessed.
7. To enable the said consideration, the petitioner shall now submit a representation along with the supporting documents and a copy of this order to respondent No.3, who shall thereupon keep in view the value of the paddy for the year 2014-15 and make recommendation for payment of amount. In that light the competent authority shall take steps, pay the difference amount if any to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a decision is taken on the representation and such decision shall also be taken within two months from the date of filing the representation.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms