Amr Power Private Limited vs Mr. Leo Alex D Souza on 26 August, 2015

[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Amr Power Private Limited vs Mr. Leo Alex D Souza on 26 August, 2015

Bench: B.S.Patil

                                1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

                     C.R.P.No. 143/2014
BETWEEN

AMR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,
A company registered under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956,
having its regd.office at Nos.701-702,
Prestige Meridian II, M.G.Road,
Bangalore 560 001,
Rep.by its Deputy General Manager,
Also at Shamboor Village & post,
Bantwal Taluk, D.K.                       ... PETITIONER

(By Sri. Uday Holla, Sr.Counsel for
 Sri Shridhar Prabhu, Adv.)


AND

MR. LEO ALEX D' SOUZA
S/o late Gregory D' Souza,
Aged about 74 years,
r/at Polali Road, Near Amar
Engineering Works,
B' Mooda Village, Bantwal Taluk,
D.K. 574 211,
Rep.by his power of attorney holder
Mr.Richard D' Souza s/o Gregory D' Souza,
Aged about 53 years,
r/at Polali Road, Near Amar
Engineering Works,
B' Mooda Village, Bantwal Taluk,
D.K. 574 211                            ... RESPONDENT
                                 2


(By Sri S.D.N.Prasad, Adv.)


      This CRP filed u/s 115 CPC., against the order dated
19.2.2014 passed in Misc.Case No.55/2009 on the file of I
Addl.District Judge, D.K. Mangalore, and etc.

     This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court
made the following:

                              ORDER

1. In this revision petition, order dated 19.02.2014 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore is challenged. By the said order, the Court below has held that the petition filed by the respondent herein under Sections 10(c),16(3) and 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act') was maintainable.

2. Facts leading to the present revision petition, stated in nutshell are that the respondent is the owner of item Nos. 1 to 5 of the petition schedule properties. Revision petitioner erected a tower and drawn electricity supply line over part of the suit schedule properties. Complaining that the action of the revision petitioner has caused huge financial loss to the respondent, he has sought for compensation at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per cent by moving an application before the Deputy Commissioner. 3

3. The Deputy Commissioner vide endorsement dated 25.10.2009 informed the land owner that he has to avail the remedy under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the land owner - respondent herein moved a petition under Sections 10(c),16(3) and 16(4) of the Act before the I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, in Miscellaneous Case No.55/2009 claiming compensation.

4. The respondent has contested the claim contending inter alia that the petition filed was not maintainable before the District Judge. This objection raised by the revision petitioner has been repelled by the Court below holding that the petition filed under Sections 10(c),16(3) and 16(4) was maintainable. In this background, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner - Company.

5. During the course of arguments, leaned counsel for both parties submit that in terms of the Rules framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the Deputy commissioner has been clothed with powers to determine the compensation payable as per Rule 3(2) of the Rules and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to determine the amount of 4 compensation payable to the land owner/occupier of the land. It is submitted at the bar that once such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the occupier / land owner could be reserved liberty to seek enhancement in accordance with law. This submission made at the bar is jut and appropriate.

6. Hence, without going into the other legal contentions raised, this revision petition is disposed of. The impugned order is set aside.

The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, is directed to determine the compensation payable for the loss sustained by the occupier/land owner due to the electricity line drawn by the revision petitioner over the lands in question. Respondent is reserved liberty to file an application along with necessary documents in support of his claim for payment of compensation. It is open to the claimant - land owner to file an application for spot inspection in accordance with law. The revision petitioner is also at liberty to place such materials as are permissible in law regarding the amount of compensation payable. The Deputy Commissioner shall consider and dispose of the matter by determining the compensation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5

Both parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 07.09.2015.

Sd/-

JUDGE VP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court