IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WP NO.4959/2018 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAIAH, S/O. LATE GOWDAJJA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BENCHE VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 102 (BY SRI K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONER 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) BANGALORE MAJOR WORKS SOUTH DIVISION, KPTCL, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, NEAR SIDDAGANGA COMPLEX, OLD SIDDAGANGA JUNIOR COLLEGE PREMISES, KOTHI TOPU. TUMKUR-572 102 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT./MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) ******* THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PASS ORDERS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED IN ANNEXURE-C MISC.NO.88/2010 BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DTD.30.01.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR AS PER ANNEXURES – E AND E1 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER PASS ANY APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR ALLOWING ANNEXURE-C AS PRAYED FOR IN THE COURT BELOW AS PER LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner has challenged the judgment and award passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in C.Misc.Pet. No.88/2010 dated 30.01.2016, whereby a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been awarded with interest at 8% per annum.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of an agricultural land in Survey No.51 of Benche Village, Bukkapatna Hobli, Sira Taluk. It is submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have taken up the work of installation of the towers and drawing of high-tension electricity lines in the lands of the petitioner without awarding any compensation for cutting of the standing trees and the utilization of the subject land.
3. The learned counsel Sri K. Murthy, appearing for the petitioner argues that the determination of compensation towards cutting of standing trees made by the learned District Judge is not in conformity with the evidence placed on record, the compensation awarded is abysmally low; no compensation indeed has been awarded towards the diminution value of the land.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 justifying the impugned judgment and award would submit that the compensation determined by the learned District Judge is just and reasonable and no further enhancement is called for.
5. Learned AGA appearing for the 1st respondent supports the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that no compensation has been awarded towards diminution value of the land. Even the compensation awarded for cutting of standing trees appears to be on the lower side. It is significant to note that no evidence was let in by the respondents. In the absence of any evidence of the respondents to refute the claim of the petitioner, it was necessary for the learned District Judge to analyze the claim of compensation towards diminution value of the land.
7. In the circumstances, the judgment and award impugned is set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur to re-consider the matter in accordance with law and to take a decision in an expedite manner. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The parties are at liberty to lead the additional evidence, if any.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*