Karnataka High Court
Smt. D. H. Geetha vs The Assistant Executive on 22 January, 2021
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.22319 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SMT. D. H. GEETHA
D/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/A D.NO.555/8, 1ST MAIN,
IST CROSS, SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY
BADAVANE, DURGAMBIKA SCHOOL,
NITTUVALLI,
DAVANAGERE 577002. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
HEAVY WORKS SUB DIVISION-3,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
DAVANAGERE 577002. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ANENXURE-A DATED 07.02.2019 MADE ON
I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.679/2015 BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ORDER ANNEXURE-B DATED
02.03.2019 MADE IN M.A.NO.2/2019 BY THE COURT OF III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner being the plaintiff in an injunction suit in
O.S.No.679/2015, is knocking at the doors of writ court for
assailing the order dated 2.3.2019, a copy whereof is at
Annexure-A, whereby the learned Addl. Civil Judge,
Davanagere, having rejected his appeal in M.A.No.2/2019,
has concurred with the view of the learned trial Judge in
denying/discontinuing the interim protection granted earlier.
2. The respondent-KPTCL having entered appearance
through its panel counsel, vehemently opposes the Writ
Petition making submission in support of the impugned order
and the reasons on which the same has been constructed;
having made lot of research, the counsel has produced a
wealth of legal literature which throws light on the issue
being debated before this court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to
grant indulgence in the matter in view of the provisions of
Electricity Act, 2003 r/w provisions of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885, and the two judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of
this court and of Punjab & Haryana High Court, which
sufficiently empower the respondent herein to enter into any
private land for the purpose of accomplishing the electricity-
transmission-related work which includes erection of towers;
that being the position, the only relief availing to the
petitioner is to lay a claim for compensation for the user of his
land in question.
4. The aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned
panel counsel for the respondent are:
(i) ILR 2010 KAR 356 - Sri.B.H.Narayanaswamy Vs.
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited.
(ii) Judgment dated 23.11.2018 rendered by another
Co-ordinate Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8786/2013 &
connected matters.
(iii) 2002 SCC Online P & H 1132 - Power Grid Corporation
of India Vs. Rajbir Singh.
(IV) 2016 SCC Online P & H 2386 - Parminder Kaur @
Satinder Kaur Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
All these judgments unequivocally support the case of
respondent-KPTCL.
However, none of these judgments come in the way of
petitioner making a claim for compensation and the
requirement of such a claim if made being expeditiously
decided.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is
disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise a claim
for compensation in respect of the user of his land; if such a
claim is made, the respondent-KPTCL shall decide the same
and award compensation after hearing all the stakeholders
within eight weeks; delay in compliance will entail the KPTCL
with a monthly cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the petitioner;
however, the same shall be recoverable from the erring official
responsible for the same.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cbc
