Dismissed

Assistant Executive Engineer v. Doddathimmappa

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023WP/20013/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging an order enhancing compensation for land used to construct an electric tower. The Court held that without contra evidence, the Sub-registrar's valuation certificate was probative and not liable to interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected, upholding the compensation order of Rs.70,057/- passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Doddathimmappa — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41168 WP No. 20013 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20013 OF 2014 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA, KPTCL, 66 KV LINE, 3^RD CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. M C NAGASHREE.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DODDATHIMMAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶13

GURAPPA

¶14

S/O LATE GUNDAPPA

¶15

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶17

GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶18

THIMMAPPA

¶19

S/O LATE GUNDAPPA

¶20

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶21

THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE GUNDAPPA

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:41168 WP No. 20013 of 2014

¶24

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶25

ANAND

¶26

S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, TALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - R6)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2013 PASSED IN MISC.72 OF 2013 (ANNEX-A) OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioner is called upon to pay the compensation in a sum of Rs.70,057/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the respondents from the date of the application for compensation. The petitioner is called upon to pay compensation as aforesaid by the impugned order dated 06.02.2014 in Misc. No.72/2013 on the file of the Additional District

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:41168 WP No. 20013 of 2014

¶35

and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga [for short, ‘ the District Court’ ].

¶36

It is seen from the records that the petitioner has utilized an extent of 28.47 guntas in RS 140/2 of Kodihalli village, Talaku Hobli, Challakere, Chitradurga District for the purposes of constructing a tower and drawing 400 KV high tension electric wire. The respondents have been paid a sum of Rs.4,758/respectively as compensation towards diminished value of such land. The respondents have filed their application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 seeking enhancement in the compensation which is registered in Misc.No.72/2013.

¶37

The respondents have relied upon the RTC Extract [ Ex.P.1 ] and certain correspondences [ Ex.P.3 ] as also the Land Valuation Certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-registrar [ Ex.P.2 ]. The petitioner, on the other hand, has relied upon a

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:41168 WP No. 20013 of 2014

¶40

Memo of Calculation [ Ex.R.1 ] which, as could be seen from the impugned order, gives the details of the utilization of the land. The District Court, relying upon the valuation as certified by the jurisdictional Sub-registrar, has taken the market value at Rs.1,80,000/per acre and determined the

¶41

compensation payable taking 50% of such value as diminishing value of the property.

¶42

counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order on two counts: firstly, on the ground that the District Court could not have taken the value of the property at any rate more than Rs.35,000/- per acre; secondly that 30% of the value should have been taken as compensation payable for the diminishing value of the land; and thirdly, the learned counsel relies upon the orders of this Court in W.P.No.39979/2013 which is decided on 06.08.2014.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:41168 WP No. 20013 of 2014

¶45

Sri R. Shashidhara, the learned counsel

¶46

for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has not let in any evidence to disbelieve the probative value of the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-registrar and as such, the District Court has rightly accepted the same. Insofar as the reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.39979/2013, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is distinguishable on the facts of the case.

¶47

These rival submissions are considered, and this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere unless it is shown that exercise of discretionary jurisdiction is perverse or otherwise contrary to law. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner, who has not led any contra evidence to disbelieve the probative value of the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:41168 WP No. 20013 of 2014

¶50

registrar, cannot have a grievance with the District Court relying upon such valuation.

¶51

Even otherwise this Court must observe

¶52

that the respondents’ specific case is that they were utilizing the land for growing crops such as sunflower, maize, ragi, groundnuts, onion, cotton etc., and that with the construction of the tower and because high tension wires are drawn, they will not be able to cultivate commercial crops as they will not be permitted to grow tall trees such as teak, coconut and arecanut. Further, the decision of this Court in W.P.No.39979/2013 is in the context of the facts as appreciated by this Court in the case on hand and will not be of any assistance to the petitioner.

¶53

For the foregoing, the petition is rejected.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

SA ct:sr

Assistant Executive Engineer v. Doddathimmappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assistant Executive Engineer v. Doddathimmappa

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

M/S Shriram Vs the Deputy

Mr. Narayanaswamy Perumanna Vs Income Tax Officer

Putta Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Sri. Shankar a Kunder Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Smt Shahida Begum Vs the Assistant Commissioner