IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NOS.48592-594 OF 2014 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. Managing Director Represented by Director (Administration and HR) K.P.T.C.L Corporate Kaveri Bhavana Bengaluru 2. Executive Engineer Bruhath Kamagari Vibhaga, K.P.T.C.L Office K.S.R.T.C Depot Road Chitradurga – 572 143 3. Assistant Executive Engineer K.P.T.C.L Office Bruhath Kamagari Vidhaga K.S.R.T.C Depot Road Chitradurga – 572 143 ….Petitioners (By Sri. Shirish Krishna, Advocate) AND:
T.D. Suresh Babu S/o Late T.C. Donappa Reddy Aged about 48 years Occ: Agriculture R/o Bandlurahatti Village Maradihalli Post Hiriyuru Taluk Chitradurga District – 572 143 ….Respondent (Respondent served but unrepresented) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order Misc. No.66/2012 dated 15.04.2014 on the file of Proceeding Officer, learned Additional District and Session Judge, Chitradurga. The copy of the judgment and award produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have challenged the judgment and award dated 15.04.2014 passed in Miscellaneous No.66/2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereby it is held that the respondent is entitled for compensation of `69,472/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till payment and the petitioners herein were directed to pay compensation amount along with accrued interest.
2. The respondent had filed the petition under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 seeking compensation for drawing up of Electrical Lines in his land bearing R.S.78/2p1 situated at Thalvatti Village, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyuru Taluk, Chitradurga District, measuring to an extent of 5 acres 24 guntas. Out of which, 78.12 guntas of land was utilized by the petitioners for transmitting electricity line for drawing up of 400 KV High Tension wire and installing tower. On considering the claim of the respondent, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga has passed the judgment and award wherein, diminution value of the land is determined at 50% of the market value of the land, which has been impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel Sri. Shirish Krishna, appearing for the petitioners would submit that the diminution value of the land determined at 50% of the total market value is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of ‘THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL VS. DODDAKKA’ reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, where in identical circumstances, the cognate Bench of this Court has determined the Diminution value of the land at 30% of the market value of the area affected.
4. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
5. As could be seen from the material available on record, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga has proceeded to determine the diminution value of land at 50% of the total market value. However, no reasons are assigned for arriving at 50% of the total market value. The order of this Court in ‘DODDAKKA’ (Supra) was not available to consider the diminution value at 30% as now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The memo of calculation filed by the petitioners as per Ex.-R1 relates to the area of land utilized for drawing up of 400 KV High Tension Wire, including tower and corridor but the same does not disclose anything about the diminution value. The learned District Judge considering Ex.R1 read with Ex.P3, the certified copy of the extract of market value of the land, has determined 50% of the total market value towards diminution of land value.
6. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another reported in JT 2010 (10) SC 26 wherein it is observed thus;
“25. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of Judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision”.
7. It is well settled legal principle that reasons are the heart beat and soul of the order/judgment without which the order/judgment becomes lifeless. In the absence of reasons, it is hard to ascertain the mind of the Court on the basis of which the determination has been made. Hence, this Court deems it proper to set aside the judgment and award impugned and restore the proceedings on the file of the learned District Judge to reconsider the matter and take a decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the judgment of this Court in Doddakka case, supra and is ordered accordingly. Both the parties are permitted to lead additional evidence if any, in support of their claim. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-