Disposed

Smt. Dundavva W/O. Sadashiv Gotadaki v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024WP/100696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the writ petitions of three petitioners who accepted compensation, and disposes of the fourth petitioner's petition regarding land acquisition for electric towers, reserving liberty to seek compensation determination from the Deputy Commissioner under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot, for determination of compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Smt. Dundavva W/O. Sadashiv Gotadaki Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6073 WP No. 100696 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.100696/2022(LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. DUNDAVVA W/O. SADASHIV GOTADAKI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERDAL, TQ: RABKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 581 314.

¶9

ASHOK S/O. DEVENDRAPPA UPPADYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERDAL, TQ: RABKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 581 314.

¶10

SHIVALING S/O. RANGAPPA LENDI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERDAL, TQ: RABKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 581 314.

¶11

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BHUPAL S/O. ASHOK MANAGANVI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERDAL, TQ: RABKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 581 314.

¶13

PRAKASH S/O. RAYAGOND CHANNANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TERDAL, TQ: RABKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 581 314.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE; PETITION AGAINST PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 5 IS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.04.2024)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6073 WP No. 100696 of 2022

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 2^ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KNOWN AS KPTCL, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - ADMIN AND HR, KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V), MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION-2 OFFICE, KPTCL, 1^ST FLOOR, TRANSMISSION ZONAL, OFFICE COMPLEX, 110KV NAVANAGAR GRID, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT – 587 103.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.S.KAMTE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO SEEK FOR ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF THEIR LANDS TO THE UTILIZED BY RESPONDENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC TOWERS AND FOR COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME AND ALSO FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE CROPS. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS/REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-G SERIES AND TO ACQUIRE THE LAND AND PAY COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN, BEFORE INSTILLING THE TOWERS AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6073 WP No. 100696 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶28

petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5 does not survive for consideration, since they have accepted the compensation from the respondents.

¶29

Submission is placed on record.

¶30

Petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 5 is

¶31

dismissed as not pressed.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner No.4 and the learned counsel for respondents.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner No.4 submits that in view of Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act,

¶34

1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), it is the District Magistrate who has to determine the compensation and in the present case, no such determination of compensation is done. If petitioner No.4 is not satisfied with the determination of the compensation by the District Magistrate, petitioner No.4 is having

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6073 WP No. 100696 of 2022

¶36

remedy under Section 16 of the Act itself, to approach the District Court. Therefore, he seeks disposal of the petition with liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot for determination of the compensation.

¶37

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by petitioner No.4 is disposed of, reserving liberty to him to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot seeking determination of the compensation, in accordance with law.

¶38

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶39

In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending I.A’s do not survive for consideration and same are disposed of.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

MBS/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt. Dundavva W/O. Sadashiv Gotadaki v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dundavva W/O. Sadashiv Gotadaki v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basappa S/O. Siddlingappa Hulyal Vs the Municipal Commissioner

Smt. Shanta W/O Shivagond Kambale Vs Smt. Bangarevva W/O Yamanappa Doddamani

Shri. Basavaraj S/O Shivaputrappa Ashi Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Ratnappa S/O Balu Kalatage Vs the Government of Karnataka

Vinay @ Venkatraman S/O Parameshwar Hegde, Vs Manjunath Parameshwar Hegde

Smt. Nanda S/O Anand Mannapur Vs the State of Karnataka