Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri A. S. Katti Mandaiah on 8 June, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
W.A.No.583/2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO.583 OF 2018 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF FOREST,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
MADIKERI WILD LIFE DIVISION,
MADIKERI.
3. THE AGRICULTURAL DIRECTOR
VIRAJPET,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA)
AND:
SRI. A.S. KATTI MANDAIAH
S/O LATE SUBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
KURCHI VILLAGE AND POST,
SOUTH KODAGU - 571 217,
VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT
W.A.No.583/2018
-2-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 31.10.2017 IN W.P.NO.49187/2016 (GM-FOR).
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, KRISHNA S DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 made in W.P.No.49187/2016 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has disapproved the method adopted by the appellant/respondents for assessment of the loss caused to the paddy crop of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) by Wild Elephants. Further, he has directed the appellants herein to take into account the price of paddy for the year 2014-15. The learned Single Judge, while directing the assessment to be made as per the price of paddy for the year 2014-15, has permitted the writ petitioner to submit a representation for consideration of his claim above the quantity of 15 quintals, as taken by the appellants. W.A.No.583/2018 -3-
This appeal is reportedly time barred by a period of 38 days. Having regard to the circumstances, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, on merits.
Having considered the matter in its totality, we are unable to find any reason warranting interference.
The writ petitioner asserted that the paddy crop grown by him on the property bearing Sy.No.113 (a) measuring 2 acres at Kurchi Village, Shrimangala Taluk was destroyed by wild elephants and hence, he was entitled to adequate compensation. The appellants granted him compensation to the tune of Rs.8,700/- on the basis of the circular dated 30.04.2011. Dissatisfied, the writ petitioner approached this Court seeking direction against the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Madikeri Wild Life Division (appellant No.2 herein) for payment of balance compensation of Rs.44,100/-. The respondents attempted to justify the quantum of compensation allowed by them with reference to the said W.A.No.583/2018 -4- circular dated 30.04.2011; and as regards the quantity, they relied upon the spot report and mahazar.
The learned Single Judge referred to the fact that at the earlier instance, the writ petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.56167/2013, when he had suffered loss in the year 2012-13 and therein, the Court disapproved the method adopted by the authorities by relying upon the circular dated 30.04.2011, whereunder the prices of the paddy of the year 2009 had been taken into consideration and it was held that the actual price of the paddy during the year of loss was required to be taken into account. While following the said decision, the learned Single Judge held that when the loss suffered by the petitioner had been during the year 2014-15, the rate of the paddy during the said period was to be taken into consideration and the method adopted by the respondents, taking the price of paddy for the year 2009 was not justified.
As regards the question of quantity, the learned Single Judge found it just and proper to extend an opportunity to the W.A.No.583/2018 -5- writ petitioner to submit a representation along with supporting documents, if any, to show if a larger area had been cultivated and loss suffered was to larger extent than 15 quintals as taken by the authorities. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition accordingly.
Seeking to question the order aforesaid, it is sought to be contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the writ petitioner was a habitual litigant and has filed a case without any legal right. It is also submitted that the ex gratia payment is extended by the Government to the persons/agriculturists for the loss suffered due to wild animals/elephants but the petitioner cannot claim any compensation as a matter of right. The submissions remain bereft of any substance.
It appears from the record that the writ petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.56167/2013, when he suffered loss in the year 2012-13. In the said petition too, this Court disapproved the method of assessment as adopted by W.A.No.583/2018 -6- the appellants while holding that the actual price of paddy during the year of loss was required to be considered.
Looking to the nature of loss/injury suffered and the method adopted by the appellants, it is difficult to accept that it were a case of extending ex gratia payment. On the contrary, it appears that specific assessment was made with reference to the quantity destroyed and then, with reference to the price of the paddy. When payment is made on the basis of certain basic parameters related with quantity and price of the produce, it had obviously been a compensation granted by the Government and when such compensation is being granted, an appropriate method of assessment is required to be adopted. The method, as adopted by the appellants while assessing the loss in the year 2014-15 with reference to prices of the paddy of the year 2009, could have only been disapproved as being unreasonable and unjustified.
The appellants do not appear justified in alleging that the writ petitioner is an habitual litigant for having filed the writ petition seeking adequate compensation in the year 2013 too. W.A.No.583/2018 -7- The fact that the writ petitioner did suffer the loss because of attack of wild elephants in the year 2012-13 and also in the year 2014-15 has not been disputed. When he has suffered loss, the writ petitioner cannot be faulted in seeking adequate compensation therefor.
For what has been discussed above, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted the relief to the writ petitioner and no case for interference is made out.
Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/