Allowed

Thimmappa v. the Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024WP/7291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging compensation awarded via Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985. The court quashed an order for lack of evidence on market value and conscience on account of delay in filing, remanding the matter for re-determination of compensation. Interest was denied for the pendency period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.10.2012 quashed; matter remanded to Additional District and Sessions Judge for re-determining compensation in accordance with law.

Thimmappa Vs the Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14785 WP No. 7291 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7291 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THIMMAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O KODIHALLI VILLAGE, TALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶7

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LARGE WORK DIVISION KPTCL 66KV NEAR KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA - I

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA, KPTCL 400 KV, CHITRADURGA - 577 501

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. N.G. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN MISC.236/2011 DATED 09.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND HENCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS.5,00,000/- ACRE WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM AND ETC.,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:14785 WP No. 7291 of 2022

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 148, measuring 3 acres and 16 guntas situated at Kodihalli Village, Taluku Hobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District and the respondents have drawn the transmission line and installed towers on the subject land.

¶21

The petitioner not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner has filed an application under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, seeking enhanced compensation. The learned District Judge granted compensation of Rs.8,293/- to the petitioners towards the installation of the tower and drawing of the transmission line (Corridor Area). The petitioner's contention is that the market value of the land has been determined at Rs.35,000/- per acre without any basis, and therefore the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge is not sustainable.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that

¶23

only the transmission lines were drawn in the subject land, and towers are not installed as contended by the petitioner. He further

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14785 WP No. 7291 of 2022

¶25

submits that the petition filed after an inordinate delay of more than 11 years is not maintainable and the petition deserves to be dismissed solely on this ground.

¶26

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

¶27

Admittedly, transmission lines were drawn on the petitioner's land. The petitioner had not produced any evidence for determining the market value of the subject land. The market value has been determined without any basis, and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law, since the petitioner is entitled for just and proper compensation towards laying of transmission lines and installation of towers.

¶28

Although, the impugned order was passed on 09.10.2012 the present petition was filed on 29.03.2022, and no explanation is offered for the delay in filing the writ petition. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is entitled for just and proper compensation, the delay in filing the writ petition requires to be condoned. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:14785 WP No. 7291 of 2022

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) Petition is allowed and remanded.

¶33

ii) Impugned order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Chitradurga in Misc.No.236 of 2011 is hereby quashed, and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge for re-determining the compensation in accordance with law.

¶34

iii) It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest in the event of enhancement of the compensation from 09.10.2012 to 29.03.2022.

¶35

iv) All contentions are kept open.

¶36

v) Petitioner is granted liberty to file additional documents, if any.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Thimmappa v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thimmappa v. the Executive 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

Gangappa Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Uttam Kumar K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prakash Ramachandra Sapkal, Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Taluka Agriculture Produce Market Co. Operative Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing

Vijayraj Surana (A-4) Vs Central Bureau of Investigation