Karnataka High Court
M/S. Power Grid Corporation Of India ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.18110-18111/2013 (GM-RES)
C/w. W.P.No.50863/2013 (GM-KEB) &
W.P.Nos.54169-190/13
IN W.P.Nos.18110-18111/2013 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
M/s. POWER GRID CORPORATION
OF INDIA LIMITED
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
YELAHANKA 400(GIS)/220 KV (AIS)
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE
NEAR R.T.O. DRIVING TEST TRACK
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI (PO)
OFF YELAHANKA-DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560064,
HAVING ITS SOUTHERN REGION TRANSMISSION-II HQ,
AT PRAGATI MAHALAKSHMI
SOUTH BLOCK, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR
62, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS
MEI RAOD, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
YESHWANTHPUR
BANGALORE 560 002
REP BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
MR A SANKARA RAJU. ... PETITIONER
(By SMT. JOSHNA H SAMUEL, ADV.)
AND
1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001
2
2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
REVENUE BUILDING
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009
3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NO.108, PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE 560001.
4.SRI CHANNAPPA S/O LATE HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
5. AKKAYAMMA W/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
6. LINGARAJAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
7. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
4- 7 ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
8. NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE MUTTAIAH
AGED ABOUT YEARS
9. AMBARISH S/O CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
10. SHAMANNA S/O LATE KEMPABAIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
11. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O DODDAMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
12. ANJANAPPA D.V. S/O LATE VEERABACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
3
13. NANJAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKNARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
14. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKNARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
15.ANNYAPPA S/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
16. NANJAPPA S/O RANGAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
17. KEMAPANNA S/O SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
18.RAMAIAH S/O LATE MUTTURAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
19. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUTTURAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
20. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
21. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE PATALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
22. MUNIYAPPA S/O BTAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
23. PRAHLAD RAO
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
24. NAGARAJ RAO
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
25. HEEREGOWDA S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
26. DODDAHAPPAIANNA S/O CHIKKAPPAIANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
4
27. MUNIYAMMA W/O DODDAPAIANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
28. MUNIYAPPA S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
29. MUNI KEMPANNA S/O PATTALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
30. DEVARAJU S/O LATE PATTALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
31. CHENNARAYAPPA S/O PATTALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
32. DEVAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
33. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
34. KRISHNAPPA S/O DODDAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
35. H.HANUMANTHANIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
36. ANJANAPPA S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
37.MUNIYAMMA BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESPS. 8 TO 37 R/AT DIBBR VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.H.KANTHARAJA, AGA &
Smt.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, HCGP,
Sri J.D.KASHINATH, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLNTS. ON IA 3/13
Sri HANUMANTHAPPA B., & Sri HARAVIGOUDAR, ADVS. FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON IA 4 & 5/2013)
5
IN W.P.No.50863/2013 & IN W.P.NOS.54169-190/13
BETWEEN
1. LAKKAPPA
S/O HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
2. ANJINAMMA
W/O MUNISHAMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 089
3. BYATAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
4. MUNIYAPPA
S/O SIDDALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
5. SUDHAMANI
D/O K V PUTTARUDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
6. VENKATAPPA
S/O DODDAMUDALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI,
ARAKERE POST,
6
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-561 203
7. DILSHAD BEGUM
W/O LATE MEHABUBKHAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI,
ARAKERE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-561 203
8. S C NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKARUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SHANUBOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ARAKERE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-561 203
9. C SADASHIVAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKARUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
SHANUBOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ARAKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-561 203
10. SIDDAMARIYAPPA
S/O LATE RAMALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
SHANUBOGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ARAKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-561 203
11. SAROJAMMA
W/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
CHOKKANAHALLI POST,
ARAKERE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-561 203
7
12. NANJAPPA
D/O DODDAMUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
ITTAGALAPURA VILLAGE,
RAJANUKUNTE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 064
13. NARSIMHASWAMY
S/O LATE K N NARAYANSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI,
ARAKERE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 203
14. RAVINDRANATH
S/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DIBBURU VILLAGE,KAKOLU POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
15. LAKSHMANA
S/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
RAJANUKUNTE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 064
16. M KRISHNAPPA
S/O THIMMAPPA @ MUNITHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
RAJANUKUNTE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 064
17. H NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O S M RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
8
SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
18. MANOHARA
S/O S M RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
19. S R SRINIVASMURTHY
S/O RAJA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
MADAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
RAJANUKUNTE POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 064
20. SIDDALINGAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
21. NARAYANAPPA
S/O GOPALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
22.BASAVARAJ K.P.
S/O K.S.SHANTHA KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
23.BHANUMATH
D/O K.S.SHANTHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.22 & 23 ARE
9
R/AT KAKOLU VILLAGE & POST
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. SUNIL DUTT YADAV S., ADV.)
AND
1. M/S POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)
YELAHANKA 400(GIS)/220 KV(AIS)
CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE,
NEAR RTO DRIVING TEST TRACK,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI (P.O)
OFF YELAHANKA-DODDABALLAPUR ROAD,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 064
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
REVENUE BUILDING,KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri H.KANTHARAJA, AGA &
Smt.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
W.P.NOS.18110-111/2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO REMOVE
ALL OBSTRUCTIONS/RESISTANCE, IN THE EXECUTION FOR LILO (LOOP
IN LOOP-OUT) OF 4OOKV S/C NELAMANGALA-HOODY TRANSMISSION
LINE AND LILO (LOOP IN LOOP-OUT)OF 400 KV S/C SOMANAHALLI-
HOODY TRANSMISSION LINE AT YELAHANKA 400 KV S/S/ ON MULTI
CIRCUIT TOWERS UNDER SRSS-XII - KARNATAKA, AND TO PASS
NECESSARY ORDERS.
W.P.NO.50863/2013 & W.P.NOS.54169-190/2013 FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT, RESPONDENT FROM INTERFERING WITH
THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTIES UNTIL THE
RESPONDENTS RESORTS TO ACQUISITION UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW
& PAYMENT OF FULL COMPENSATION FOR SUCH USAGE OF LAND.
10
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioner M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India Limited is seeking a writ of mandamus - against the Deputy Commissioner - 2nd respondent herein to remove all obstructions/resistance in the execution of Loop-in Loop-out (for short, 'LILO') of 400 KV Single Circuit Nelamangala - Hoody Transmission line and LILO of 400 KV Single Circuit Somanahalli - Hoody Transmission line at Yelahanka and also 400 KV Sub-Station on Multi-Circuit Towers under SRSS-XII - Karnataka. Challenge is also made to the order dated 12.01.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-C insofar as it relates to payment of compensation for the land under the transmission line corridor over which the transmission lines run and also the order dated 20.07.2012 produced at Annexure-G1 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. Petitioner is a Government of India Undertaking. It is established with a view to develop an efficient Power Transmission System network throughout the country and to 11 establish National Power Grid in the country. Petitioner - Corporation has been entrusted with the task of establishing a 400 - 220 KV Gas Insulated Sub-station at Yelahanka and 220 KV Air Insulated Sub-station and LILO of Nelamangala - Hoody and LILO of Somanahalli - Hoody at Yelahanka.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after securing necessary permission, conducting the required survey and having taken note of all parameters of the project, it has finalized the most techno-economically feasible line route and accordingly the project has been under execution. It is contended in the writ petition that it has erected all the 25 numbers of Towers and about 3.317 km of stringing work has been already completed, out of 9.5 km of total line. It is also stated that the sub-station work has been already completed in 2012. On completion of balance transmission line stringing work of about 6 km, it is urged that the entire system will be put into operation. The contention urged is that the commissioning of the said system would vastly improve the power supply position of Northern Bangalore where there is industrial growth.
4. During the progress of the project, there were resistance from the landowners for drawing the line and carrying out other 12 ancillary project work. This made the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate in terms of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, 'the Act') requesting him to remove the obstruction and permit the petitioner to proceed with the project work. The Deputy Commissioner called for a meeting on 12.01.2012 in which the landowners and official representatives of the petitioner - Corporation had participated. The Deputy Commissioner has drawn up the proceedings vide Annexure-C opining that compensation has to be paid to the landowners for the damage caused in the Tower location and for the land underneath the line corridor.
5. A perusal of Annexure-C would disclose that the representative of the landowners and the petitioner - Corporation were present and on the basis of the views expressed by both parties, the Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that 60% of the land value has to be paid to the landowners in respect of lands under the line corridor.
6. According to the petitioner, a sum of `1,28,06,250/- has been already paid by the petitioner to the landowners for the land covered under the tower/tower footing area at 100% of the 13 land cost at the market rate. As the landowners started obstructing the drawing up of lines on the ground that the compensation has to be paid for the lands above which the transmission lines run and also aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.20012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure G1 directing the petitioner to pay compensation at 60% of the market value for the land under the line corridor, the petitioner has approached this Court, after corresponding with the authorities and having failed to convince the authorities to extend protection to them to complete the project.
7. According to the petitioner, even if the value of the land is reckoned by taking 60% of the market value for the lands coming under the line corridor and as per the estimate made by the Tahsildar under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, the total amount will come to rupees 12.80 crores. Out of this amount, it is urged by the counsel for the petitioner - Corporation that pursuant to the interim order dated 31.07.2013 passed by this Court, a sum of rupees six crores has been already deposited before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore on 03.08.2013. It is further urged by the petitioner - Corporation 14 that despite such deposit made and in spite of directions issued in the interim order dated 31.07.2013 directing the respondent
- authorities to remove the obstruction and extend protection to the petitioner to draw lines and complete the project, the respondent - authorities are not taking any action. In this background, these writ petitions are filed principally urging that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to determine the compensation payable in respect of the land over which the line corridor is drawn and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the market value at 60% or at any other percent for such user.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Kanthraj taking me through the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner submits that petitioner - Corporation has itself agreed to pay compensation at the rate of 60% of the market value of the land during the course of negotiations before the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, they cannot go back on their assurance to contend now that there is no legal obligation on their part to pay compensation keeping in mind the market value of the land.
15
9. Sri Sunil Dutt Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - landowners in W.P.No.50863/2013 & W.P.Nos.54169-190/2013 submits that the Corporation is liable to pay compensation at the full market value of the land over which line corridor is drawn. He further points out that the amount of rupees six crores deposited before the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, as per the interim order dated 31.07.2013 was based on the earlier estimate for only 21mts. of land found as affected zone, for which the compensation was to be determined. Whereas, it has now transpired that the land that would be affected is 46mts. and not 21mts. and the 46mts. is to be calculated from the middle conductor of the transmission line, therefore, the landowners are entitled for compensation in respect of the said extent of land. He further urges that the Corporation has to be, therefore, directed to deposit additional amount so as to safeguard the interest of the farmers who are going to be deprived of their livelihood, if the Corporation is permitted to draw the line corridor without depositing any amount.
16
10. Learned counsel appearing for the landowners has taken me through Section 10(d) and Section 16(3) of the Act in support of his contention. Reliance is also placed at the Bar on several other judgments of this Court and the Apex Court regarding fixation of compensation and payment thereof in such cases.
11. It is not necessary, at this stage, to refer to these judgments, suffice to observe that the provisions contained under the Act, particularly Section 10(d) and Section 16(3) provide that Telegraph Authority is enjoined with a duty to do as little damage as possible while exercising its powers in respect of properties of the landowners and shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers. Insofar as Section 16 of the Act is concerned which pertains to the disputes regarding compensation, particularly Sub-clause (3) of Section 16 it provides that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (3), either of the disputing parties may make an application to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, whereupon the District Judge will 17 determine the compensation payable. It is also necessary to notice the provisions contained under Section 16(1) of the Act which empowers the District Magistrate to exercise his discretion and order that the Telegraph Authority shall be permitted to exercise its powers as per Section 10 in respect of the property which is made use of in terms of Section 10(d) of the Act for the purpose of the project like the one that is undertaken in the instant case.
12. It is, therefore, clear from the conspectus of these provisions that while the Corporation is justified in approaching the District Magistrate for removal of obstruction and for permission to exercise its powers of drawing the lines, in view of the resistance offered by the farmers, at the same time it is enjoined with the duty to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the damage caused to the property and to the crops. If the compensation offered/paid is not sufficient, then the aggrieved party, particularly the landowners are entitled to move the jurisdictional District Judge for determination of just and appropriate compensation legally payable.
18
13. In the instant case, at the stage of removal of the obstruction by the farmers when they resisted the drawing of lines, the Corporation has approached the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has used his good office and has negotiated with both parties to find an amicable solution. It is no doubt true that the Deputy Commissioner is not the Competent Authority to determine the compensation. He is not clothed with any power under the Scheme of the provisions to determine the compensation. However, in order to resolve the dispute, he has assisted both the parties.
14. In fact, as can be seen from the proceedings vide Annexure-C order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he has mentioned that the Corporation was willing to pay 30% of the market value for the land which lies underneath the line corridor, but this was not accepted by the landowners and therefore, in the further negotiations, as mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner, both parties agreed to settle down for payment of 60% of the market value of the lands.
15. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that as the whole exercise of determination of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction and he was only required 19 to confine his power for removal of obstruction and to extend protection to the Corporation to draw the lines, the tentative offers and suggestions made during the course of the proceedings before the Deputy Commission are not decisive for determination of the compensation.
16. So far as the landowners are concerned, learned counsel appearing for them including the applicants who have filed impleading applications in W.P.Nos.18110-18111/2013 contend that they are entitled for compensation calculated at the full market value for the land under the line corridor. It is also urged that the impleading applicants, particularly, to such of the lands that are utilized for establishing power stations by utilizing the whole land full compensation at market rate has to be paid.
17. These questions cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Whether in the given case, the landowners are entitled for compensation at the market value for the lands over which the line is drawn or whether the Corporation is only required to pay the amount calculated based on the damage sustained by the concerned farmers and not at the market value and if so, what is the extent of damage 20 that is suffered by each of the farmers is a matter to be examined by the appropriate Forum i.e. the jurisdictional District Judge. Even the grievance made by the impleading applicants stating that their respective lands are fully acquired for the purpose of establishing a Power Station thereby depriving them of any use of the said lands in any manner is also a matter which is required to be examined by the jurisdictional District Judge in the appropriate proceedings initiated or to be initiated in this regard. This Court cannot hazard the exercise of determining the compensation payable to the affected landowners because it is statutorily required to be done by the learned District Judge. But, the apprehension expressed by the landowners that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the Corporation is not directed to deposit at least a portion of the compensation which may ultimately be determined as compensation payable, then it would be very difficult for them to recover the amount expeditiously even after the orders are passed by the District Judge, has been indeed partly addressed in the order dated 31.07.2013 while directing the petitioner - Corporation to deposit a sum of rupees six crores, particularly keeping in mind the crops and structures.
21
18. However, as it is submitted that the said amount was directed to be deposited keeping in mind the area as 21m and now it transpires that area likely to be affected is 46m, without going into the actual area i.e. likely to be affected, this Court in order to protect the interest of the farmers called upon the Corporation to deposit additional amount to safeguard the interest of the landowners. To this query of the Court, the counsel for the Corporation has submitted, without prejudice to the right of the Corporation and the contentions urged, only in order to enable them to complete the project expeditiously, particularly keeping in mind the public interest, they are prepared to deposit another sum of rupees three crores within a period of two weeks from today before the Principal District & Sessions Judge. In the light of this submission, I am of the considered view that the interest of the farmers are prima facie protected by the deposit already made in a sum of rupees six crores apart from the amount paid and also the amount of three crores that the Corporation has now come forward to deposit now.
22
19. Therefore, keeping open the contentions urged on merits regarding the determination of the compensation, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:
i) The affected landowners or persons interested are at liberty to move the District Judge seeking compensation for their lands in terms of the provisions of the Act. It will be open for them to urge that they are entitled for compensation based on the market value and also on the basis of the damage sustained.
ii) The Corporation is at liberty to contest the claim in accordance with law urging that they are not liable to pay the market value.
iii) The amount to be deposited in a sum of rupees three crores within two weeks from today shall await the final decision of the learned District Judge in the applications/petitions to be presented seeking compensation and based on the orders to be passed, the amount shall be disbursed to the persons entitled.
iv) Learned District Judge shall make all endeavours to dispose of the applications presented/to be presented as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight months from the date of presentation of the applications. If the applications are already presented, then the same shall be disposed of within 8 months from the date of receipt of this order.23
v) Both parties shall co-operate in the speedy disposal of the case by the learned District Judge.
vi) The amount of rupees three crores shall be deposited by the Corporation within two weeks from today before the Principal District & Sessions Judge in the Case bearing Registration No.Misc.89/2013 which shall await the decision of the cases in all the connected matters.
vii) Respondents 2 & 3 are directed to extend all possible protection immediately for laying the transmission lines so as to facilitate the execution of the project work.
viii) Petitioner - landowners and also the impleading applicants shall also extend their co-operation to the Corporation in executing its work of drawing the transmission line in according with law without causing any obstruction.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS