Mahadevamma vs Asst Executive Engineer on 29 January, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mahadevamma vs Asst Executive Engineer on 29 January, 2020

Bench: Krishna S.Dixit

                            1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO. 23261 OF 2018 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:

1. MAHADEVAMMA,
   W/O LATE G S SIDDAYYA,
   AGE 50 YEARS,

2. MOHAN,
   S/O LATE G S SIDDAYYA,
   AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

3. THIPPESWAMY,
   S/O LATE G S SIDDAYYA,
   AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

4. MALLAMMA,
   D/O LATE G S SIDDAYYA,
   AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

  ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST,
  R/O THALAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
  MOLAKALMURU TALUK-577535.
  CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                       ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
   400 KV ,KPTCL, CHITRADURGA-577501

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
   400 K V, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL,
   CHITRADURGA-577201

3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL,
   CORPORATE OFFICE,
   KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE-01
                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
    R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                               2


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN MISC.
246/2011 DATED 21.11.2013 VIDE ANNEX-F.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                           ORDER

Petitioners being the owners of the land in which the power lines run have presented this writ petition for assailing the order dated 21.11.2013 a copy whereof is at Annexure-F whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Chitradurga having partly favoured their Misc. No.246/2011 has awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs.39,130/-. Petitioners grieve that the enhancement is less than what they are legally entitled to.

2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their Panel Counsel resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) the contention of the petitioners that no compensation is awarded for trees that existed on the land when power lines were being laid, does not merit consideration in the absence of minimum evidentiary material such as the Record of Rights or the like, in support thereof; ordinarily the trees that exist in an agricultural land are reflected in the Record of Rights as prescribed by the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966;

even otherwise no material is placed before this Court as well to accept the version of the petitioners as to the existence of trees when the project was undertaken years ago; and,

(b) the other contention of the petitioners that in respect of lands situate in the adjoining districts namely, Tumkur, a higher compensation is paid in terms of the order dated 12.02.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Tumkur District and therefore the same standard should be made applicable to the lands of the petitioners too cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the lands of the petitioners were utilized since 2011 whereas the Deputy Commissioner's order is of February 2016, and it is apparently prospective in operation.

In the above circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bsv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court