Smt Shameem Bee Vs the State of Karnataka

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, (KPTCL) CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION KOTHITOPU ROAD OLD ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶21

SRI. K. YADUKUMAR @ BABU S/O B.A.N. KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR RESIDENT OF ALBUR VILLAGE NONAVINAKERE HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 224.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADV., FOR R2 R3 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP No.3395/2020 (GM-KEB) DATED 23.08.2022 AND BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ABOVE WP AND ALLOW THE WA WITH COSTS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶32

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka

¶33

High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3395/2020 (GM-KEB).

¶34

Sri.Gurudhatta K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in dismissing the writ petition holding that the appellant shall establish title and ownership in a Civil Court. It is submitted that the appellant's title was never in dispute and the authorities have wrongly paid the compensation to the respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.3 clearly indicates that the husband of the appellant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent No.3 and no sale deed was executed in respect of 32 guntas of land in Sy.No.78/Block-2 of Albur Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District. However, the respondent No.2 wrongly paid the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

compensation to the respondent No.3. It is also submitted that the high tension lines were drawn by removing the trees from the land of the appellant which is not in dispute. It is contended that the respondent No.2 had initiated the criminal proceedings against the respondent No.3 for fraudulently receiving the compensation by producing fake documents and a charge sheet was also filed. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the appellant.

¶38

Per contra , Sri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections and the additional statement of objections, submits that the respondent No.3 has caused obstruction for the execution of work and after considering the material produced, the compensation has been released in favour of the respondent No.3. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 has submitted an application for providing

¶39

the compensation in respect of cutting of the trees in Sy.No.78/Block-2 of Albur Village and along with the

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

application, he has produced the RTC and other revenue records. The Village Accountant has also issued a certificate which indicates that the revenue records are standing in the name of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 has also executed an indemnity bond. The respondent No.2 has considered the documents produced by the respondent No.3 and released the compensation. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3, while receiving the said compensation has produced fraudulent documents and therefore, the KPTCL lodged a complaint before the Nonavinakere Police

¶43

Station. The same is registered in Crime No.104/2016 and thereafter, the respondent No.2 has issued a notice to the respondent No.3 to re-deposit the compensation amount received by him. However, the respondent No.3 has failed to deposit the said amount. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶44

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶45

counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.

¶49

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking prayer

¶50

to quash the order dated 17.12.2019 at Annexure-H passed by the respondent No.2 which was admittedly pursuant to the earlier direction issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5330/2019. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No.2 has drawn high tension lines in the property of the appellant bearing Sy.No.78/ Block-2 of Albur Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District. The respondent No.2 has admittedly paid the compensation to the respondent No.3 based on the application submitted by him for the release of compensation amount. A perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.3 indicates that the husband of the appellant who is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.78/ Block-2 in Albur Village has executed an agreement of sale in favour

¶51

of the respondent No.3 to the extent of 32 guntas after receiving Rs.1,05,600/-. However, the sale deed could not

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

be executed since the parties were under the impression that

¶55

there is a non-alienation period of 15 years.

¶56

The statement of objections filed by the

¶57

respondent No.3 as well as the documents placed by the appellant unequivocally makes it clear that the appellant is the owner of the land in Sy.No.78/Block-2 of Albur Village and in the said land, the trees were cut and high tension lines were drawn. The statement of objections and the additional statement of objections filed by the respondent No.2 clearly indicate that the respondent No.3 has played fraud and received the compensation to which he is not entitled. The said admission in the statement of objections

¶58

and the initiation of the criminal proceedings by the respondent No.2 against the respondent No.3 which has culminated in filing of the charge sheet against the respondent No.3 further makes it clear that the respondent No.2 had erred in releasing the compensation in favour of the respondent No.3 based on the agreement of sale and the certificate issued by the Village Accountant. It is further noticed that the respondent No.2, in the order at Annexure-H

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

dated 17.12.2019 has recorded a finding that the appellant is staying in Bengaluru and the respondent No.3 is a tenant in the land in question. The said finding of tenancy is without any evidence on record.

¶62

The further finding of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.3 has stated before him that he has grown trees and is entitled for the compensation is again without any material before him. The respondent No.2 has recorded the finding that though the line is passed from Sy.No.78/ Block-2, the title to the property is required to be established in the Civil Court. In our considered view, the said finding is contrary to the material placed before him and before this Court. The material on record clearly establishes that the appellant is the owner of the land in Sy.no.78/2, Albur Village and in the said land, high tension lines have been drawn and he is entitled for the compensation. Admittedly, the respondent No.3 is alleged to be the only agreement holder from the husband of the appellant in respect of 32 guntas. The respondent No.2 has clearly erred in holding that there is a clout over the title. The

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

respondents, based on the representation of the appellant and after coming to know that a false representation was made by the respondent No.3 by producing fake documents, initiated criminal proceedings which culminated in filing of the charge sheet against the respondent No.3 and also sent notice to re-deposit the amount which further makes it clear that the release of the compensation amount in favour of the respondent No.3 was a clear error on the part of respondent No.2 and for such error, there is no justification for directing the appellant to approach the Civil Court and be made to suffer for such an act.

¶66

For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for the compensation for the loss suffered by him due to the act of the respondent No.2 in drawing the high tension lines in Sy.No.78/ Block-2 of Albur Village. Accordingly, appeal is allowed .

¶67

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:51128-DB W.A. No.1189/2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

The order of the learned Single Judge and the order dated 17.12.2017 at Annexure-H of the respondent No.2 are set aside.

¶70

Consequently, a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the appellant as per the representation submitted by him. The said compensation shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶71

Liberty is expressly reserved to the respondent No.2 to

¶72

recover the amount from the respondent No.3 in accordance with law.

¶73

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶74

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶75

RV

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Shameem Bee v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shameem Bee v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Manoj v Naidu Vs Mr. Manjunath

Dr. Richard Picardo Vs Smt Shilpa Nag C T IAS

C H Venkataraju Vs Ramana Reddy

Mr. Saleem Pasha Vs the Station House Officer

Smt Mary John Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs Sri N J Raju