Karnataka High Court
Prajeesh M S vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 10 December, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE tow DAY op' DECEMBER
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUS'FICE,AJ_IT
WRIT PETITION No.3 165}*20:'10tGiV§fI{EI§}I":.,,,.:'
BETWEEN :
Prajeesh i\/I.S.,
S/o.Mr.Surendra, ._ I _ 1 I .
Aged about 83 years,
Residing at Mundupa1athinka1',--.A 0 0'
Nallur vi11age,_Ne11i};ar §Post._} _ 0' I
Karkala Taluk; Ueiupi District. I .0 ;, I ""';f.PE'i'ITIONER
(By I:vC.1:1#l:1rifé;l *BiIéiI+W-l
AND 0
Karnataka' P__ower VTrans:ri'i.;ssion
Corporation Ltd . ,' Kavoor,
'Mangalofe, represented by the
' "EXe'o11tiV'e E'i1giD.eer.
V E',1.e'<:t.,V 1Vi,§tj0f«WOIkS Division. ...RESPONDENT
""(Bf'2%i3Ni1;K.Gupta, Adv.) writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and * _ {$327 "of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash theorder dated 09.09.2009 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi passed in
-Miseellaiaeotzs ease No.20/2004 ie, as per Annexure 'A'.
-7- .4 This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made "the foliowing: ORDER The petitioner is questioning the . the learned District Judge at..... No.21 /2004 granting inadequate 7]:
petitioner. V 2 it
2. Mr. Sharat C_handra....VVi3iUi_ai,_v learned voounsel appearing for the petitioner "-su{bi.nitsff that voluminous evidenceand ree'or:d..si vve'1=e_ "produced before the learned District of their ciaim that they are .-vv.entitVie;r.1eoiripensation. None of the orai and "d' eu1ne1'1tai'y'veVidenee has been considered. learned counsel appearing for {the respondent supports the impugned order.
-- 'V it The matter arises in the following manner:
-4» years and the cost of the trees after the yield period etc. Thus, the tota} claim before the learned District.Jiddge was ?'7.22,80O/~. ' I' V V
5. T he case of the petitionermis that"th4e::"eyidence..:it was Iet--in on behaif of the petitionertttc"
petitioners claim is 1egitimate"a_nd said compensation. Bfiut the Judge has accepted has directed to pay a sum the rate of 6%.
6.: orderbassed by the iearned District "Judge. -- V Inddeediduring. course of enquiry, on behalf ' "of the petit-ioner one' witness was examined and on "'b_eh_ait« another. A perusal} of the impu__gned~ or-'der does not disciose as to how the Vdetermiiadtion is done by the iearned District Judge. jindeed the learned District Judge has fleetingly referred to-certain decisions and has come to the conclusion that W X -5- the petitioner is entitled for a sum of 337,020/--. Indeed the petitioner has made available the documents3.iiiliich were produced during the course of . of the said documents would disclose _the",oft: "' labour cost in immature rubber at 380/" per day. Thus, acc'ord~ing to said document has not .beenVgicor'1sid'e_rec1'_h" I am of the View that the entlirenllisfreqiiired to be re- done by the lea:rn_ed so having regard to by t;l._'1evv_petitioner both oral and order:
(a) ib-ll it order at Annexure 'A' is ..... .. e matter stands remitted to the learned Judge, Udupi for fresh disposal in it "accordance with law. The District Judge, Udupi shall restore the file to its original number.
(d) Since the parties are represented before this / /fie Court, they shall take these proceedings as W -5- notice to them and shail appear before__ the learned District Judge at Uciupi January 2011.
(e} The petitioner as well the 1f'esp'Oi'{d'eIitt..'_are._ permitted to lead fu1V'thert"e\{i:(1.efitee;"' -. I» _ "
(fl Registry, to send baclgthe I'ev.(30.If(i.'3.A:fC>_r'fi}~§t)tfit'I1';:
Rule made abso}ut_e.
tsd/..
A;-t Judge SPS