BETWEEN:
1
* " D.I{.__
-1-
113 ms man OOIIRT or xamwrum AT =
Dated this the 26"' day
BEFORE _
TI-IE riorrnm HR.
Writ Pefitgon Na*'%i'1oGgFcsf;%2@ f :( GM--KEB1
A
3/0 1ate4%N'a:a§?afia'At1m11nfia3*.' »
Aged aboui-<52 "
Post: 0d"€§t:':;ia:.;XIi}l;ag¥e: _ '-- "
Bra!' " " Té3.i11$
fl I $1 .'
Smt. ,_ '
W10 late:
Egiaja»; V V
"Relf.h'sm'gr;§§y Tallxk
" . ...Petitio13ers
A' ' Commissioner
= ._I_)_akshina Kannada
Maugakm: -- 575 001
Executive Engineer
K.P'.'I".C.L. Engineer
Heavy Works Department
Kavoor
Mangalore -- 575 015 ...Respa1dents
(By Smt. Asha Kmnbargclimath, HCGP fcrziifil L}:
Sri N K Gupta, Advocate for R2) ' '
This Writ Petition is filed und{:fAw J '.433 zgsmj 227 Fm
the Constitution of india, praying tug tbs; mspoflfii-zntsvi',
to pass an order on the objections
This Writ Petifion c)1ni:fi:':g._ c:'r:1 1:914" amm V%%:5i§%%'aay, thc
Court made the foflowing: ' . ._ ' fg
% The _Wfit'vPcfifion seeking a
direction to an ouicr on the
to restrain the second
mspondcfiut its work on the schedule land
with-nut obtaiinjhg, the fast mspondcnt.
No.1 is the owner of ma bearing Sy.
66 meats and Sy. No. 136] 28
T V VV aituatnd at Odilnala Vike of Bclthangady
H 'T§;'ii:1k._. $1 respondent hm issued a letter dated
:$;4;m£)2 to the seeond pefitioncr informing that a double
_’ 1; it distribution Iinc is to be drawn fmm Guzruvayanakcm of
Bclthangmy Taluk to Ncttahnudnoor and the fme pmsca
through a portion of the land of the petitioners and, thcmfonez,
k/
they have to cut and ncmavc some: trees 4.’.
pctiisioncm and the forest and horfjcultme.
determine the ooznpcnsatzion
petitioners opposed the of the
bees. Petitioners filed the Deputy
Commission’ ‘ er man of the
respondents which they would
of the The grievance of the
is filed, even before
v’v”….4.”
” 11;; igzicazetlzaitiafaxtatt’, me respondent ‘w going ahead with the
Avhfaxnififion the structunm and drawing afhigh
V the petitioners have preferred tlfm
% reliefs.
_ _ ~ This Court while entertaining the Writ Petition on
d ” gmnted an interim alder the respondents
4′”<.».fiot to pwcipitatc any flush acfiozn pending further orders.
hi/.
-4-
a-
Today a memo is filed by the mspondcnts
land belonging to the petitioner in %syt.uq.192]23itt;;’edy.atg’
Village, Bclthangady Taluk, a tower at
cmetud as the petitioner
bearing Sy.No.136 at to rm
pctitziazmer two Tawcirs Nos. 14 and
15 am been aheaay
stringed as The conductor is to
removing thté’ the annexumd evaluation
list fi11m’s_ht_3d £)1:ecto1’A.” : of Horticulture amassing the
trans to be cut and removed.
S1;;.’V*.-;_’g;,’. Department also has furnished the
‘ Vt the compensation payable: in Inspect
be used only as fin: wood. The total
asst;-ased by both the Departments is in a sum of
– and a communication datmi 27/3/2008 has been
. V the petitioner to mm-,Ivr:’ the compensation by fum1shm’ ‘ g
the mquimd docmncnts. The petitioner has acknowledged the
it/’
‘of W~’§'”P5A°t
of the respondents contend, when once the
_ have objected to the laying arm». chctrjoal fines, the
Magistmic has to consider the same and pass
‘gppmprsatc orders. Ewan bcibm such ordcm we passed the
same, but has not In-spondcd. it is categorically
scocmd respondent has not taken an3»(mac11Ton_–‘is:-» ‘V
as apprehended by the
second respondent under law is apt 2
form any That: is no mad’ when:
towers have been at and 15.
Therefore, they undexmkethat fags} any road in
the land bcaring except removing
the trees .;.1~m. of Horticultural and
Fomst be recorded in the
interest {tag ;um.% Vic». the petitioner to mcxzivc the
oompcnsatittn-« and approach the area
z ed counsel for the putt’ ‘ assa1l1n’ ‘ g the
U’/..
to notice to all persons interested and give
_t_h¢..v:; an to state their objections, ifany.
‘ that, after service of notice as per Annex1ue-D on
the petitioners did not object to the laying of the
-5,
respondents have no jurisdiction to install ll
installation. Therefore, he contends the VV 9»
to the relief sought for. In
on a judgment of a Division o I
zmzmaa an we in rut’
eoxronmmxam 4164] where it
has been held any of Section 15
is to be by the person who
has filed antltoiitles are bound to refer
the matter -tlzze. under Section 16(1) of the
Telegraph for the appellant to physically
of ‘transmission lines. Before passing an
16(1), the District Mwswz-ate has
ll contra, the learned oounsel for the respondents
E4/.
thy: ‘cfifltclpetitioncr and meet inataliations
‘ . Nemiy for five yczars them
no me said notice. Even m this day no
% with the mm Icspondcnt. Themfmc, the
has no application to the theta ofthis mac.
clectlical Jim. In fact it is with their consent they
the hansmission line and in fact tpey ha?:«b”‘ej£.j1;t:[5i§:ted {1ie~
installation in an respects. No
second respondent. The miiiance
is placed is filed five years fiatrict
Mafistratc by which ‘work was
completed. Thelezibm. of tht;
aforesaid V clear as mspondecnt has issued
Annaxure-D wiisc-1;; s;~m awaA,%1sAk%4.2oc2 *m::in;atsng the petitioner
ޤr._ hyiagf Bang. The said letter is duly
E’/.
and the compensation they me
to are paid proper market value. That is a
be taken into ocmsidemtion at the time of
u or damages. So there is no impediment
to the laying of the fine itself and Section 16 has
‘7. In so far as the obligation cast on
issue notice, consider the objec1io.:_iWis_
requirement is to be complied Wi1″.h:’»j)y
when then: is an of
eempla’mt by the second that is a
provision which enables as laying of
the line. Once ts: of removal of
obstruction weflIt§},:efi’iot ‘Iiiii\*evvV:’gone through the
representation to the Deputy
Co1mn1ssm’ ‘_’1V1erV. ” is ‘ not that the second
net line. If the line is laid they
have to the the entire gbeneath that
is ‘net value and, the-xefore, their request
-19-
the question whether the on-mpensaflon paid
and mmoved is proper, in addition to that, {if ,
Sd/~…
% Judge
ekl