Mrs Cicily Chandy vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 10 December, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mrs Cicily Chandy vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 10 December, 2010

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10*" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GUN«.J:AL*«Ov:~-.9: if  

WRIT PETITION NO.3164/20pi0(G«Ivi'~~:KEBi:  if  

BETWEEN :

Mrs.Cici1y Chandy,
W/o.Mr.P.V.Chandy.

Aged about 57 years, I p  _ 
Residing at Vattapal1i1£~_I<o't1.se,'V V V 

Hosmar Post, Karkala Taluk, '   f

Udupi District.    :_ ""'~T"O~:V..Lj,5f'ETITIONER

(By Sri.Saratrchaizdfa"éijai,.:VA}1v--.--}--~:

Karnataka Power "i'rVaris:riiss~io"I;.

Corporation , Ltd.  'K.avo.o:',  9"'

1\/I.arrgalore}.3 represented by the

EXeo'utiv"e- Erigineﬁpr,  OOOOO 

Elect; Majior .,W'«0rk_s'* Division. . . RESPONDENT

 Adv.)

 "This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
 Iifof  Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
 "th'e_order..dated 09.09.2009 on the file of the Court of
9' District Judge. Udupi District, Udupi passed in
{ix/[4ise.i..laneous case No.20/2004 i.e., as per Annexure



-')_

..

This writ petition Coming on for hearing, this day,

the Court made the following:
ORDER

The petitioner is questioning the order the learned District Judge at Udupi 0' No.20/2004 granting inadequate-leomperisa_tion'4_t.o petitioner.

2. Mr.Sharat Chandra'-vi.g:..'Ei_iai, 0' l-earned appearing for the peti'tioner:"si.1hrnits-,_thatllvoitiininous evidence p_rodiieed before the learned District Jndge their claim that they are entitled ggforl eoinpensation. None of the oral and Vdoc1ime:ntary.evidence has been considered.

3."-léﬁiirl,N:K;lGupta, learned counsel appearing for it _ the respondent supports the impugned order. 0 "dated 15.09.2000 acquired the land in question to an is 4.'"i'he matter arises in the following manner:

"The petitioner. pursuant to a registered sale deed

5. The case of the petitioner is that the evidence was 1et--in on behalf of the petitioner to H petitioner's claim is legitimate and is "

said compensation. But however, fi¢'grﬁE~p;--.:

Judge has accepted the petitionxin ;

to pay a sum of ?29,Ei15/~   rate of
6%.     Q

6. I have  the learned

District

71;In-deedllllduriiiglﬁle'-course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner' one" "fitness was examined and on .___beha~if the nlrespondent, another. In support of her C1.:ai1r1,_ '_'ple'titioner has produced EXP4 -- price list given by' Jt'l'l:9V..--:féL1bb€I' Grower's Produce-r's Society and lgualso 'Revenue files. A perusai of the impugned order ":ll'doels"~«not disclose as to how the determination is done by the learned District Judge. Indeed the learned District Judge has ﬁeetingly referred to certain decisions and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is % notice to them and Shall appear before the mix.

Eearned District Judge at Udupi onf'V.__;.._ January 201 1.

(e) The petitioner as well as--"the.'re--epoﬁden.t" are permitted to lead further T [1] Registry, to send back'-tf1"eoreCho1'd.s Rule made absolute». » V' '. Judge SPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court