Allowed

Doddathippeswamy v. Asst Executiven Engineer

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2024WP/23258/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged compensation awarded under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act for transmission lines and a tower erected on his agricultural land, claiming trees were cut without compensation. The High Court quashed the award and remanded to the District Judge for fresh consideration with opportunity to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 19.12.2013 in Misc.No.308/2011 quashed; matter remanded to District Judge for fresh consideration within four months; no interest on enhanced compensation from 2013 to 2018.

Doddathippeswamy Vs Asst Executiven Engineer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12901 WP No. 23258 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23258 OF 2018 (GM-KEB)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

DODDATHIPPESWAMY S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGE 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O CHIKKERAHALLI VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, MOLKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577535

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA .,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶8

ASST EXECUTIVEN ENGINEER BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA KPTCL,400 K V, CHITRADURGA-577501

¶9

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL 400 K V CHITRADURGA-577501

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, KAVERI BHAVANA, BANGALORE-01

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PADMA.S.UTTUR ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. MADHURI PRATINIDHI., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UDNER ARTICLE 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.308/2011 DATED 19.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:12901 WP No. 23258 of 2018

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The respondents installed 400 kV high tension double circuit electricity transmission lines and erected 1400kV tower in the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.29/6 situated at Bhatrahalli Village, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District belonging to the petitioner herein. The petitioner not satisfied with the compensation, filed a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned District Judge awarded a compensation of Rs.28,270/towards diminutive value and Rs.6,000/- towards installation of tower. The grievance of the petitioner is that there were 22 neem trees and other trees standing on the subject land and the neem trees and other trees were cut by the respondents for drawing of the transmission lines and installation of the tower. He further submits that the compensation amount of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the learned District Judge towards the installation of the tower is on the lower side.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there were no neem trees standing on the subject land as on the date when the transmission lines were drawn. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation and the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge is just and proper.

¶20

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:12901 WP No. 23258 of 2018

¶23

The petitioner had taken up the contention before the learned District Judge that there were 22 neem trees standing on the subject land and other trees at the time of transmission lines were drawn, and the said trees were cut for the purpose of drawing transmission lines and installation of tower. The petitioner nor the respondent have placed on record the mahazar drawn at the time of drawing transmission line. The petitioner further submits that in identical circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the tower area. Therefore, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the learned District Judge to provide an opportunity to the petitioner and the respondents to adduce additional evidence to substantiate their respective claims. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶26

ii. The impugned order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Misc.No.308/2011 is hereby quashed, and the matter is remanded to the learned District Judge to reconsider the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, afresh.

¶27

iii. Learned District Judge to conclude the proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:12901 WP No. 23258 of 2018

¶30

iv. In the event compensation is enhanced, the petitioner is not entitled for the interest on the enhanced compensation from 2013 to 2018.

¶31

All contentions are kept open.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

RKA

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Doddathippeswamy v. Asst Executiven Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddathippeswamy v. Asst Executiven Engineer

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

Shri. Sivaprasad. K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sarala N Vs the Regional Transport

M/S Sangam Enterprieses Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. C. Anjali Vs the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

Coromandel Sugars Limited Vs Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission

Sri. Akshay S Vs State of Karnataka