Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri Eriah
2021 Latest Caselaw 5655 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5655 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri Eriah on 7 December, 2021

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

       WRIT PETITION No.30417 OF 2015 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:

1.      KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
        COMPANY LIMITED (KPTCL)
        BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
        MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT
        KPTCL
        KOTHITHOPU ROAD
        TUMKUR TOWN
        TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

2.      ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
        MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT
        KPTCL
        KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
        TUMKUR ROAD
        TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

                                        ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI ERIAH
S/O HALIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DUGUDIHALLI GOLLARAHATTI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
                                        ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 24.03.2015 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE 5TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, TIPTUR IN CIV. MISC.06/2013, PRODUCED HEREWITH
                                 2




AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
ETC.


     THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

This petition is filed against the impugned

judgment and award dated 24.03.2015 passed by

the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur

(for short "the Trial Court") in Civil Misc.

No.06/2013 allowing the claim petition filed by the

respondent-claimant herein for enhancement of the

compensation awarded in favour of the respondent

by the petitioners-KPTCL.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the material placed on

record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the petition and referring to

the documents produced by the petitioners, learned

counsel for the petitioners contends that this Court

in the case of The Executive Engineer

(Electrical) V/s. H.K. Ganganna

(W.P.No.45867/2019 disposed of on

16.11.2021) has held as under:

"This petition is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Misc. No.10023/2015 allowing the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimant herein for enhancement of the compensation awarded in favour of the respondent by the petitioners-KPTCL.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record.

3. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent-claimant, he has chosen to remain unrepresented and not contested the petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioners as well as the material placed on record, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a perusal of the impugned judgment and award will indicate that the said judgment and award is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL AND ANOTHER VS.

DODDAKKA reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677 which

is followed in the subsequent decisions by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS vs P.LAKKAPPA SWAMY in Writ Appeal Nos.2883- 2884/2014 dated 15.03.2019 and in the case of SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER AND OTHERS vs LAKSHMAIAH DEAD IS LRS in Writ Petition No.49381/2016 dated 29.05.2019. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award allowing the claim of the respondent and awarding exorbitant compensation is illegal and the same deserves to be quashed.

5. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it is clear that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the pleadings and evidence of the parties apart from not considering the decision of this Court in DODDAKKA'S case and subsequent decisions referred to supra.

6. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits on the rival contentions, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Trial Court and remit the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in DODDAKKA'S case and subsequent decisions

referred to supra by giving one more opportunity to the parties to put forth all their contentions before the Trial Court including adducing additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.

7. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.

No.10023/2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in the case of DODDAKKA and subsequent decisions referred to supra;

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners as well as the respondent to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions;

(iv) All rival contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same."

4. As rightly contended by learned counsel

for the petitioners, the issue in controversy is

squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed in

W.P.No.45867/2019 disposed of on

16.11.2021.

5. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgment and award

dated 24.03.2015 passed by the V

Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Tiptur, in Civil Misc. No.06/2013 is

set aside and the matter is remitted

back to the Trial Court for

reconsideration afresh in accordance

with law bearing in mind the

decision of this Court in the case of

DODDAKKA and subsequent

decisions referred to supra in

W.P.No.45867/2019 DD:16.11.2021);

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the

petitioners as well as the respondent

to adduce additional oral and

documentary evidence in support of

their respective contentions;