Allowed

The Executive Engineer v. Smt. Sushilamma

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2021WP/5200/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed four writ petitions filed by KPTCL officials seeking to quash orders allowing claim petitions for compensation enhancement. The court held that the Trial Court failed to follow prior precedent and set aside the impugned orders, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and awards allowing claim for enhanced compensation are set aside and matters remitted to Trial Court for reconsideration.

The Executive Engineer Vs Smt… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5208/2021 (GM-KEB) C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5159/2021 (GM-KEB), WRIT PETITION NO. 5200/2021(GM-KEB), WRIT PETITION NO. 5209/2021 (GM-KEB)

¶7

IN W.P.NO. 5208/2021

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶10

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

SRI. N. N. MAHALINGAPPA @ N. MAHALINGAPPA S/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDENT OF NARENHAL VILLAGE J.N. KOTE (POST)

¶15

¶16

CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 501.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 25.11.2020 IN CIVIL MISC. NO.260/2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

IN W.P. NO. 5159/2021

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND

¶27

SMT. P. T. MALLAMMA @ P. T. MALLAKKA D/O. THIPPAIAH, W/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NARENHAL VILLAGE, J. N. KOTE (POST), CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. ….RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 25.11.2020 IN CIVIL MISC. NO.261/2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A

¶30

IN W.P.NO. 5200/2021

¶31

BETWEEN

¶32

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶33

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶34

…PETITIONERS

¶35

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND

¶37

SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O. RUDRAPPA, S/O. HONNURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶38

ANANDAPPA @ K. ANANDAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA @ KENCHAPPA @ GIDDA KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶39

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NARENHAL VILLAGE, J.N. KOTE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(NOTICE TO R1 & R2 SERVED)

¶42

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 25.11.2020 IN CIVIL MISC. NO.275/2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶44

IN W.P.NO. 5209/2021

¶45

BETWEEN

¶46

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶47

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-I, JSR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501 …PETITIONERS

¶48

(BY SMT. RAKSHITHA D J, ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND

¶50

SRI. MAHANTHAPPA @ MAHANTESH. N @ MAHANTHESHI S/O. NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KYADIGERE VILLAGE, KYADIGERE (POST), CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501

¶51

….RESPONDENT

¶52

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED)

¶53

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 25.11.2020 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.277/19 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶55

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

These petitions are filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short "the Trial Court") in Civil Misc. Nos.260/2019, 261/2019, 275/2019 and 277/2019 respectively, allowing the claim petitions filed by the petitioners-claimants herein for enhancement of the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioners by the respondent-KPTCL.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶59

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents

¶60

¶61

produced by the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer (Electrical) V/s. H.K. Ganganna (W.P.No.45867/2019 disposed of on 16.11.2021) has held as under:

¶62

"This petition is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Misc. No.10023/2015 allowing the claim petition filed by the respondentclaimant herein for enhancement of the compensation awarded in favour of the respondent by the petitioners-KPTCL.

¶63

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record.

¶64

3. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent-claimant, he has chosen to remain unrepresented and not contested the petition.

¶65

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners as well as the material placed on record, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a perusal of the impugned judgment and award will indicate that the said judgment and award is contrary to the

¶66

¶67

decision of this Court in the case of the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL AND ANOTHER VS. DODDAKKA reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677 which is followed in the subsequent decisions by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs P.LAKKAPPA SWAMY in Writ Appeal Nos.2883-2884/2014 dated 15.03.2019 and in the case of SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER AND OTHERS Vs LAKSHMAIAH DEAD IS LRS in Writ Petition No.49381/2016 dated 29.05.2019. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award allowing the claim of the respondent and awarding exorbitant compensation is illegal and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶68

5. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is clear that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence of the parties apart from not considering the decision of this Court in DODDAKKA’S case and subsequent decisions referred to supra.

¶69

6. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits on the rival contentions, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed

¶70

¶71

by the Trial Court and remit the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in DODDAKKA’S case and subsequent decisions referred to supra by giving one more opportunity to the parties to put forth all their contentions before the Trial Court including adducing additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.

¶72

7. In the result, I pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

(i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc. No.10023/2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the case of DODDAKKA and subsequent decisions referred to supra;

¶75

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners as well as the respondent to adduce additional oral and

¶76

documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions;

¶77

(iv) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same."

¶78

As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue in controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed in W.P.No.45867/2019 disposed of on 16.11.2021.

¶79

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) These petitions are allowed ;

¶82

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short "the Trial Court") in Civil Misc. Nos.260/2019, 261/2019, 275/2019 and 277/2019 respectively, are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the case of DODDAKKA and

¶83

10 -

¶84

subsequent decisions referred to supra in W.P.No.45867/2019 DD:16.11.2021);

¶85

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners as well as the respondents to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions;

¶86

(iv) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶87

In view of disposal of these writ petitions, pending I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and is according disposed of.

¶88

SD/JUDGE

¶89

The Executive Engineer v. Smt. Sushilamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. Smt. Sushilamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G S Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

D S Umamaheshwar Vs Executive Engineer

Bbmp Powrakarmikara Sangha Vs State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Ele Vs Sri Chikkanna

K C Shamanna Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs G Meenakshi