Dismissed

Rajamma v. the Managing Director Kptcl

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2024WP/9011/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a KPTCL notification that omitted their lands from those notified for laying a transmission line. A corrigendum later included their lands, the interim order was vacated and compensation assessed. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to seek enhancement of compensation.

What did the court decide?

None; liberty reserved to seek enhancement of compensation.

Rajamma Vs the Managing Director Kptcl — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:28115 WP No. 9011 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 9011 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A MALLIGERE VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 226.

¶9

RATHNAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE MARULASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A MATHIGHATTA VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 119.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KPTCL NO.3, MAJOR WORKS SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:28115 WP No. 9011 of 2024

¶20

(ELECTRICAL) KPTCL, NO.3, MAJOR WORKS SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR – 572 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION BEAING NO.KANIEM(VI)/SAKANIEM(KA)/BRUKAVI/THU/2022.23/465155 DATED 13.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND THE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.SAKANIEM(VI)-3/BRUKAUUVI/THU/2022.23 DATED 13.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the Notification dated 13.12.2022 by which the lands of the petitioners had not been notified to be included in the laying of transmission line. It was, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that without notifying their lands, the transmission lines could not be drawn in their lands.

¶27

An interim order was also granted to the petitioners

¶28

on the said submission. However, the respondents

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28115 WP No. 9011 of 2024

¶30

appeared and submitted that a corrigendum has been issued to the Annexure-E including the lands of the petitioners and therefore, the interim order came to be vacated.

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that pursuant to the vacation of the interim order, a line has also been laid on the lands of the petitioners and compensation has also been assessed.

¶32

In my view, in the light of the above facts, no useful purpose would be served by entertaining this Writ Petition. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek for enhancement of compensation, if so advised, petition is

dismissed .

Sd/JUDGE

HNM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Rajamma v. the Managing Director Kptcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamma v. the Managing Director Kptcl

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

Siddamma Vs the Executive Engineer

Mahesha K M Vs State by Sub-Inspector of Police

Smt. Muniyamma Vs the Chief Manager

Alpine Pyramid Apartment Vs the Bangalore Electiricity Company Limited

H Narasimhamurthy Vs the Secretary Regional Transport Authority

P Venkata Rao Vs State by East Zone Women Police