IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE tow DAY op' DECEMBER
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUS'FICE,AJ_IT
WRIT PETITION No.3 165}*20:'10tGiV§fI{EI§}I":.,,,.:'
BETWEEN :
Prajeesh i\/I.S.,
S/o.Mr.Surendra, ._ I _ 1 I .
Aged about 83 years,
Residing at Mundupa1athinka1',--.A 0 0'
Nallur vi11age,_Ne11i};ar §Post._} _ 0' I
Karkala Taluk; Ueiupi District. I .0 ;, I ""';f.PE'i'ITIONER
(By I:vC.1:1#l:1rifé;l *BiIéiI+W-l
AND 0
Karnataka' P__ower VTrans:ri'i.;ssion
Corporation Ltd . ,' Kavoor,
'Mangalofe, represented by the
' "EXe'o11tiV'e E'i1giD.eer.
V E',1.e'<:t.,V 1Vi,§tj0f«WOIkS Division. ...RESPONDENT
“”(Bf’2%i3Ni1;K.Gupta, Adv.)
writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
* _ {$327 “of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
theorder dated 09.09.2009 on the file of the Court of
the District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi passed in
-Miseellaiaeotzs ease No.20/2004 ie, as per Annexure
‘A’.
-7-
.4
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made “the
foliowing: ORDER
The petitioner is questioning the .
the learned District Judge at…..
No.21 /2004 granting inadequate 7]:
petitioner. V 2 it
2. Mr. Sharat C_handra….VVi3iUi_ai,_v learned voounsel
appearing for the petitioner “-su{bi.nitsff that voluminous
evidenceand ree’or:d..si vve’1=e_ “produced before the learned
District of their ciaim that they are
.-vv.entitVie;r.1eoiripensation. None of the orai and
“d’ eu1ne1’1tai’y’veVidenee has been considered.
learned counsel appearing for
{the respondent supports the impugned order.
— ‘V it The matter arises in the following manner:
-4»
years and the cost of the trees after the yield period etc.
Thus, the tota} claim before the learned District.Jiddge
was ?’7.22,80O/~. ‘ I’ V V
5. T he case of the petitionermis that”th4e::”eyidence..:it
was Iet–in on behaif of the petitionertttc”
petitioners claim is 1egitimate”a_nd
said compensation. Bfiut the
Judge has accepted has directed
to pay a sum the rate of
6%.
6.: orderbassed by the iearned
District “Judge. — V
Inddeediduring. course of enquiry, on behalf
‘ “of the petit-ioner one’ witness was examined and on
“‘b_eh_ait« another. A perusal} of the
impu__gned~ or-‘der does not disciose as to how the
Vdetermiiadtion is done by the iearned District Judge.
jindeed the learned District Judge has fleetingly referred
to-certain decisions and has come to the conclusion that W
X
-5-
the petitioner is entitled for a sum of 337,020/–. Indeed
the petitioner has made available the documents3.iiiliich
were produced during the course of .
of the said documents would disclose _the”,oft: “‘
labour cost in immature rubber
at 380/” per day. Thus, acc’ord~ing to
said document has not .beenVgicor’1sid’e_rec1’_h” I am
of the View that the entlirenllisfreqiiired to be re-
done by the lea:rn_ed so having
regard to by t;l._’1evv_petitioner both oral
and order:
(a)
ib-ll it order at Annexure ‘A’ is
….. .. e
matter stands remitted to the learned
Judge, Udupi for fresh disposal in
it “accordance with law. The District Judge, Udupi
shall restore the file to its original number.
(d) Since the parties are represented before this
/
/fie
Court, they shall take these proceedings as W
-5-
notice to them and shail appear before__ the
learned District Judge at Uciupi
January 2011.
(e} The petitioner as well the 1f’esp’Oi'{d’eIitt..’_are._
permitted to lead fu1V’thert”e\{i:(1.efitee;”‘ -. I» _ ”
(fl Registry, to send baclgthe I’ev.(30.If(i.’3.A:fC>_r’fi}~§t)tfit’I1’;:
Rule made abso}ut_e.
tsd/..
A;-t Judge
SPS