Karnataka High Court
P K Sudhakar vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5362
WP No. 8037 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 8037 OF 2014 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
P. K. SUDHAKAR,
S/O LATE M. P. KALE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O PANNE DODDI VILLAGE,
KOPPA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK-571 401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
TENDERING & PROCUREMENT,
Digitally KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN,
signed by
PRAMILA G V BANGALORE-9.
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRIAL)
OF PROJECTS DIVISION,
KARNATAKA KPTCL, N. R. MOHALLA,
MYSORE-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA IN MISC. NO.20/2009
DATED 21.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5362
WP No. 8037 of 2014
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.11.2013
in Misc.No.20/2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge,
Mandya.
2. The petitioner is before this Court claiming
compensation on the premise that high tension wire is laid on
the property of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed
Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation and the respondents objected
to the same. The trial Court after recording the evidence has
concluded that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of
Rs.1,00,686/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date
of petition till the payment of entire amount.
3. The respondent-Corporation has deposited the
amount awarded by the trial Court. It is not forthcoming as to
whether the amount is kept in Bank deposit. In any case, since
the respondent-Corporation is not aggrieved by the order
NC: 2025:KHC:5362
passed by the trial Court. The amount in deposit along with
interest, if any, shall be released in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the area over which the high tension wire is laid comes to
10098 square feet. It is his further contention that the land is
converted for non agricultural use. Thus, he would contend
that Rs.20/- per square feet value calculated by the trial Court
is on lower side and Rs.20/- per square feet is only the
guidance value and not the actual market value. Thus, he
would contend that the matter has to be remitted to trial Court
for fresh consideration.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Corporation on the other hand would contend that the valuation
arrived at by the trial Court is based on the documents
produced by the petitioner himself, as such, petitioner has no
voice to say that the compensation determined is on lower side.
He would also contend that since no crops were there when the
high tension wire is laid, there is no question of awarding any
compensation for loss of crop. The trial Court is justified in
assessing the market value based on the documents produced
NC: 2025:KHC:5362
by the petitioner, which is the valuation certificate issued by
the sub-registrar.
6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute that the land in question was
converted for non-agricultural use. Even the extent of land
over which the high tension wire is laid is also not in dispute.
The only dispute is relating to the market value. After going
through the order passed by the trial Court, it is noticed that
trial Court has taken Rs.20/- per square feet as the market
value to determine the compensation. On going through the
impugned order, it is noticed that the trial Court has proceeded
as if Rs.20/- per square feet being the guidance value as a
thumb rule would be the market value. That may not be the
situation in every case. The market value at times will be
higher than the guidance value and at times, it may be lower
than the guidance value. This aspect of the matter is not
considered by the trial Court. It is also noticed that the parties
have not led any evidence as to the actual market value of the
NC: 2025:KHC:5362
property, which may be much more than Rs.20/- or less than
Rs.20/-.
8. Under these circumstances, the matter requires to
be remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration to enable
both the parties to lead evidence on the actual market value of
the property. The trial Court considering the evidence to be
placed on record by both the parties shall determine the actual
market value and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by
I Additional District Judge, Mandya, in
Misc.No.20/2009 is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh
consideration in accordance with law.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on
10.03.2025 without awaiting any further notice
from the trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:5362
(v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any thing on the merits of the matter.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
DS
