Remanded

Thippeswamy @ Sanna Thippeswamy v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024WP/6290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court under Art. 226 remitted W.P. challenging compensation award for land acquisition for transmission line. Trial Court's valuation based on dry land setting aside; fresh assessment ordered after adducing evidence on land's actual status and value.

What did the court decide?

W.P. allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remitted to District Judge for fresh evidence and determination of compensation within four months.

Thippeswamy @ Sanna Thippeswamy Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12066 WP No. 6290 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6290 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THIPPESWAMY @ SANNA THIPPESWAMY S/O LAKSHMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O VADERAHALLY VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, BENGALURU REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BAVANA, BANGALORE-01.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KPTCL, R HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL MAJOR WORKS DIVISION SUB DIVISION-1, JCR BADAVANE, 3RD CROSS(EAST) CHITRADURGA-577 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANTONY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:12066 WP No. 6290 of 2022

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND E PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS. NO.315/2018. DATED 18.06.2019 AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner, asserting ownership of the land bearing Sy.No.10 of Devasamudra Village, filed a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, seeking compensation for the loss of diminutive value of the land due to the drawing of a transmission line over the said land.

¶23

The Trial Court determined the market value at Rs. 60,000/- per acre and, considering the diminutive value at 30% per acre, awarded compensation of Rs. 34,142/- with interest at 6% per annum. Taking exception to this determination, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the subject land is irrigated and abuts the National Highway. He further argues that the market value of the land is determined at Rs. 5 lakh per acre as per the Sub-Registrar's valuation. Additionally, he asserts that the diminutive value at 30% is on the lower side and seeks an enhancement of the compensation.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner did not initially contend that

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:12066 WP No. 6290 of 2022

¶28

the land abuts the National Highway. In the absence of any material evidence supporting this claim, the diminutive value determined at 30% is just and proper.

¶29

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, I find the following:

¶30

The Trial Court determined the market value at Rs. 60,000/- per acre based on the consideration that the subject land is dry land and also relied on the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Molakalmuru.

¶31

The petitioner has annexed a certificate from the SubRegistrar indicating that the value of irrigated land is Rs. 87,000/per acre, and for land abutting the National Highway, the value is Rs. 5 lakhs per acre. The core issue here pertains to the actual situation of the subject land, which necessitates further examination and evidence from both parties.

¶32

In light of these considerations, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court requires to be set aside. The matter is hereby remitted to the learned District and Sessions Judge for a fresh determination of the compensation, ensuring that both parties are given an opportunity to adduce their evidence regarding the actual value and situation of the land. This course of action ensures a fair reassessment of the land's value and just compensation for the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:12066 WP No. 6290 of 2022

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) The Writ petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) Impugned order dated 18.6.2019, passed by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.No.315/2018 is hereby set aside.

¶38

iii) The matter is remitted to the learned District & Sessions Judge to reconsider the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphic At, 1885.

¶39

iv) The learned District and Sessions Judge to permit the petitioner and the respondents to adduce the additional evidence with respect to their respective claims, and after considering the evidence to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within the period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

¶40

v) All contentions are kept open including determination of the diminutive value of the subject land.

¶41

vi) The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observation made in this order, and any observations made in this order is only for the purpose of the present petition.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Thippeswamy @ Sanna Thippeswamy v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thippeswamy @ Sanna Thippeswamy v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

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

Smt C a Shantha Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

M/S. Siddhi Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Chandrashekar, Vs Tahsildar

Arun Kumar @ Vikas.B v Vs State by Karnataka

R. Raghupathi Gowda Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Hotel Royal Inn Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka