{"id":229482,"date":"2009-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-07T16:43:58","modified_gmt":"2016-01-07T11:13:58","slug":"the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
(BY SRIIRAO VAS'SC3\ufb01',iA'II'_ES, ADV.)\n\nAN\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED TI-IIS THE 24TH DAY or JULY, 2\u00a2e9\nPRESENT I   I\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJIILA  \n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MRS. JUSTICE\"B.V.NA(3%ARA'fI-fI\u20acA\"~ _\n\nMFA NO.11I43I8\/ZOOS-{IIIACI \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nTHE KARNATAK_t>,..15owIEiI\u00e9,I CICRIDIQFQATION\nNo.82,T.sH_AKT1:;9HAvATN;*\u00abA'_;E._I ' \nRACE co1;JR_sE \"ROAD,_.._ ;V   \n\nBAN 550901 A \nREF BY {Ts C}_~I1'E_F' \"E1'~IGINEER.\n< I ~ *    ~ ...APPELLANT\n\n...........m--\u00bb......... ..g....-\n\nsEH'1v'A?R;AM RAMACHANDRA DI-IUNDI\n\n  SATQDDI, KATTIGE TALUK,\n. "VYELI;;g'\\PIUR, UTTAR KANNADA\n KARNTAKA 581 359\n\nSVIQAEJCIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER\n\n KALI NADI PROJECT, DANDELI\n .fU'I'TAR KANNADA\n\nKARNATAKA 581 325 V\n...RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
(BY SRI.M.V.\\\/EDHACHALA, ADV. FOR R1
\nSRI.K.B.ADHYAPAK, AGA FOR R2)<\/p>\n
THIS MFA Is FILED U\/S 54(1) OF LA.f=–AcT
\nAGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND “AW}_’tRD<\/p>\n
DATED:23\/02\/2006 PASSED IN LAC No.5A23)”I99A\u00a7~–<\/p>\n
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.1DjN)’-fsIRSI:,”
\nPARTLY ALLOWING THE  <\/p>\n
ENHANCED COMPENSATION.\n<\/p>\n
THIS MFA COMI1\\EG”Q’N.r..FORv- A:>MI’ssIj0AN,rrTHIs <\/p>\n
DAY, MANJULA cHELLU1\u00e9’g;JVV DELIVEREIQ THE
\nFOLLOWING:   ‘ E   <\/p>\n
 NNNN    I30}  T<\/p>\n
 4’_appe’ai.V” of judgment and award<\/p>\n
passed b)VIN4’t1″1\u20ac”  Court in LAC No.62 \/ 1994 on<\/p>\n
 –  Igtherne Civil rJudge”(Sr. Dn.), Sirsi dated 23.02.2006.<\/p>\n
‘A  2.,  undisputed facts in this appeal are that<\/p>\n
‘4.___”-\u00bb.1ands”b_e1aring Survey No.21\/2 measuring 1 acre and
\n  No.22 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas of Kattige<\/p>\n
__Vi11age, Yeilapur Taiuk belonging to respondent No.1<\/p>\n
herein carne to be acquired for the Kali Hydro Electric
\nProject, by noti\ufb01cation dated 24.01.1993, under Section<\/p>\n
4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the <\/p>\n
Land Acquisition Officer determined the <\/p>\n
at Rs.46,709–0O and as.1o,io,o74–o0ceifiaagebtiyeiy A<\/p>\n
including other statutory benefits at\ufb01the time  <\/p>\n
award under Section 11 of  <\/p>\n
3. Aggrieved  by    of
\ncompensation, the * if I — A   if if 1′ ‘ici3″V:_Q.iJi”‘.:I”<7.1V1\u20ac1ent– claimant
\napproached the    presenting an<\/p>\n
application  ' 18 of the Act. Before the<\/p>\n
References..Court,_ the riiatter was contested. Additional<\/p>\n
 evidence came"to_'p_e brought on record in support of his<\/p>\n
' coiiteiition   with regard to inadequate and<\/p>\n
disproporti'on'ate compensation when compared to the<\/p>\n
 actual tfacts i.e., the nature of trees, age of the trees,<\/p>\n
A  nurnber of trees and so also the yield from different<\/p>\n
A  kinds of trees depending upon their age.<\/p>\n
4. The iearned Judge after giving opportunity to<\/p>\n
both the parties and upon Considering the evidence,<\/p>\n
both the oral and documentary evidence
\nquantum of compensation is less as theV__rn’arket’ _p<\/p>\n
assessed by the LAO was <\/p>\n
properties in question.\n<\/p>\n
5. On perusa} of the iit’isiV:neticied at the
\ntime of passing award, the fci11QW_ing_ amounts were<\/p>\n
awarded by the Speci-ai  of Survey<\/p>\n
 acriewef land of the first<\/p>\n
respondent: g<\/p>\n
 *  _a.  ia\u00e9iiue of ian’d'”+V Saniba<\/p>\n
_ 13,500–00
\ni\ufb01-1_,:’5,0’0 + 2,000)<\/p>\n
 Value .Efstructure 0,021–oo<\/p>\n
 bf jungle trees —\n<\/p>\n
0 .nii,o;~i\ufb01 <\/p>\n
~v\\r\/alue of fruit bearing trees 16,810–O0<\/p>\n
Total 30,331-00<\/p>\n
In respect of Survey No.22 measuring 2 acres 21<\/span><\/p>\n
guntas of land of the first respondent:<\/p>\n
Rs…  it ”\n<\/p>\n
compound Wall, etc
\n(28,145 + 785) ‘<\/p>\n
c. Value of jungle trees   <2'    <\/p>\n
Value of land _ —\n<\/p>\n
Value of structure +  – ..  _ V’ ~..\n<\/p>\n
d. Value of fruit bearing trees   2 V  <\/p>\n
Total  W.l:*i’6,S5,892–00<\/p>\n
6. Before the’..iRefere–n’c-e; lVC0.urt, Vth’e”iclaimant
\nrelied upon the judgment   Court dated
\n11.01.2002  to arrive at the
\ndecision of  be granted to the claimants.
\nIn the referred ca.s’eAipa}–so;;.iithe lands were acquired for the<\/p>\n
 lp”u.rpos”e’A Kali Hydro Electric Project and this<\/p>\n
\u00bblC’o.u_rt  the price of arecanut trees during the<\/p>\n
 Rs.3,400\/- per quintal. The yield of 4<\/p>\n
 kgsl  ‘tree was fixed. After deducting 50% of<\/p>\n
 \u00bb cultivation cost multiplier 10 was applied. Based on the<\/p>\n
‘  said judgment of the I-Ion’ble High Court, the Reference<\/p>\n
Court was of the opinion the value towards the<\/p>\n
acquisition of arecanut trees has to be re–determined<\/p>\n
depending upon the age of the trees.<\/p>\n
7. The Reference Court based K<\/p>\n
respect of Survey No.22 and   reuspeict-..of–<\/p>\n
No.21 \/2, documents referred t’o_i’as  <\/p>\n
Evaluation of Horticuituraiiiffreesgg of “t}ie’i’:Suhmerging
\nAreas signed by  iiorticuiture
\nOfficer concerned, arrivevd  statement
\nof a.recar11_1t.\u00a7 trees. As
\nper  of arecanut and
\ncoconut  E3urvey No.22 were 1,943 and
\nin respei\/{Of 2, there were only 67<\/p>\n
arvecanut trees”.-e.VV___’_If1f1-\u00a33 rest were of other fruit bearing<\/p>\n
‘trees–v1ike:’\u00abVrriacngo, guava, jack fruit, etc. Ex.P2 and<\/p>\n
EXP3 refer  the nature of trees, number of tress, age<\/p>\n
 of theme and also the kind of yield derived from the<\/p>\n
A   trees. Based on this report, the iearned Judge<\/p>\n
r\u00e9eiying upon judgment of High Court in MFA<\/p>\n
No.1084\/2001, valued the arecanut trees in respect of<\/p>\n
Survey No.22 which included 18 and 2 years.V’ro_lid._Vat<\/p>\n
Rs.2,S6,224\/–. After deducting 50% towards:’_:th’e\u00a7:;~ds\u00a7i::_of\u00ab _<\/p>\n
maintenance and cultivation, theyield per”tree at:4–  ”= ‘V<\/p>\n
was arrived at Rs.1,28,112\/–. He <\/p>\n
10 depending upon the  ofidthie trees.”<\/p>\n
Based on this capitalizationVi:’n1et.hod.4i  vfilue was
\narrived at Rs.12,81,l4i2i5.;’-hinfixsvou.il”a,rA:i,Aas_1884 arecanut
\ntrees concer_ne:d.v.._  No.21\/ 2, the
\nlearned Jiqdge._  which included
\n18  \/–. After deducting
\n500\/0 Vmaientenance, cultivation, the<\/p>\n
yield per acre at .4  tree arrived at Rs.4,556–0O\/ .<\/p>\n
i  He”  of 10 depending upon the age of<\/p>\n
 the  trees. Based on this capitalization<\/p>\n
rn”e.tho._fd,’  value was arrived at Rs.45_,560–O0\/– in so<\/p>\n
V   far as\\57 arecanut trees concerned.<\/p>\n
8. Then coming to coconut trees in respect of<\/p>\n
Survey No.22, they being 59 in number, the yielqitper<\/p>\n
tree was taken at 100 at the rate of Rs.4\/ <\/p>\n
which comes to Rs.23,600\/–.__….pSimil–ar’Iy;.:’_’:E3C)’i\/q”_was” <\/p>\n
deducted towards cost of cult:ivpati_oin’;V “After <\/p>\n
multiplier 10, by capitalisation method,l’the._j’va1.uationVC<\/p>\n
arrived at was Rs.1,1;.8,000 coconut trees were
\nfound in respect of  \/2, hence the<\/p>\n
compensation <\/p>\n
9. nrelgarc\ufb01to Evaluation of other fruit
\nbearing   “the arguments of both the
\nCounsel’  reliance on Supreme Court<\/p>\n
jut\ufb01grneiat, theV.Vle_arned Judge held that there was<\/p>\n
‘ Vimaterivali tohishow from the exhibit relied upon by the<\/p>\n
Srespondeyntabefore the Reference Court that there were<\/p>\n
 other Vufruit bearing trees. Therefore, he was of the<\/p>\n
A  .o:p’i’r_1ion that the Special LAO was justified in awarding.<\/p>\n
‘compensation of Rs.16,810–OO in respect of Survey<\/p>\n
No.21\/2 and Rs.6,16,564–00 in respect of Survey No.22.<\/p>\n
So far as the jungle trees, in respect of Survey <\/p>\n
and 22, he awarded Rs.2,000\/– and <\/p>\n
respectively. The total compensstion  t1’ie\u00ab. <\/p>\n
Reference Court was Rs.20,64,6:1_4~QOA..\u00e9irid..R’s.’6?i;’39.iA=’QQA<\/p>\n
in the following manner’i_a.s agairistp awgrd off\u00bb<\/p>\n
Rs.6,55,892–00 and Rs.3O,33TI=\u00bb.t)’0V._\u00bbin fespeet  Survey<\/p>\n
Nos.22 and 21\/ 2 resptectixrelffg Special LAO in<\/p>\n
addition to statutory””be1iefit’s..j:’iri i\u00e9icoioriciance with the<\/p>\n
Land Acq;;i’sitioii_ Act’.  _dete{ii’s Vaswtiollowsz<\/p>\n
In    <\/p>\n
Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Value” ~.of”aLre’canut’ trees<\/p>\n
12,81,120–O0<\/p>\n
P 3-‘<\/p>\n
  of c’oc.o_1_1__ut trees<\/p>\n
01,18,000~00<\/p>\n
..  Vsaiuie\u00e9viof fruit yielding trees<\/p>\n
2’ LJ<\/p>\n
06,16,564~00<\/p>\n
    structure + pagara +
\n comJg\u00a711nd wall<\/p>\n
00,28,930~00<\/p>\n
 V-alueofjungie trees<\/p>\n
0O,20,000~0O<\/p>\n
Total<\/p>\n
20,64,614–()()<\/p>\n
13″‘<\/p>\n
‘: \/ ~V -.\n<\/p>\n
‘ .  “In”1’espect of Survey No.21\/2:<\/p>\n
 ><\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.\n<\/p>\n
Value of arecanut trees 45,560–OO<\/p>\n
Value of fruit yielding trees 16v,V.\u00e93E_'(}5.()O<\/p>\n
Value of structure  <\/p>\n
.4*”.\u00b0\u00b0E\u00b0*””‘<\/p>\n
Value ofjungle trees  ‘<\/p>\n
Total     ”  A * 1370? ‘ a <\/p>\n
Award ofSy. No.22 _ A:’Rsl’2V_(A.),64\u00bb,.>6v_T.:;4400tv\u00bbT”–~.n “\u00ab,<\/p>\n
Award of Sy. No.21\/ 2  Rs..OO..V_64,i\u00a7.9  ‘
\nGrand rota;-.__   ~lt;;;fgsf._’2;1,29,’OOs’\u00e900<\/p>\n
10. Aggrieved   has come<\/p>\n
up in this :_”ap};rea} “<:o1'3'1t'e"'nc:.1'ir1_Vg"f'that there was no<\/p>\n
justificatiorl  Court to award
\ncompensaitigjnv.  in respect of both
\n\/2 as stated above and the
\n stressed upon the fact that when all
\n trees were valued at Rs.6,16,564–OO<\/p>\n
 in respect of Survey Nos.22 and 21\/2<\/p>\n
 \u00abrV"t-eesgaectively, there were no necessity for separately<\/p>\n
.-5"'<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
assessing the loss by capitalization method towards<\/p>\n
arecanut and coconut trees.\n<\/p>\n
11. As against this, the learned.  it<\/p>\n
appearing for the c1aimants–fiirst <\/p>\n
that the Reference Court was justified in tclassifyin}g.the”~ao<\/p>\n
fruit bearing trees dependingiiovupon n’ature of the
\ncrops i.e., commercial’f’and1  The
\nyield from a co.cvonut.~Vt~re.e’. in terms of
\nmoney  such as mango,
\n to interfere with<\/p>\n
the opinion of” it  ‘ l?_efe.re’nc’e Court.<\/p>\n
. .. 12.  other contention of the learned Counsel<\/p>\n
 for the’bene\ufb01ciary\u00a7appellant is the very number of trees<\/p>\n
   and EXP3 is disproportionate to the<\/p>\n
actua1fn1.easurement of land because 1960 and 76 trees<\/p>\n
 ..co_.uld*n.ot be grown, in 2 acres 21 guntas of land and in<\/p>\n
 acre of land in respect of Survey Nos.22 and 21\/2<\/p>\n
“respectively. According to him, depending upon the<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
strength and number of the trees, the yield will be more.<\/p>\n
If more trees are planted in a small area, there _vr.i_lle.not<\/p>\n
be healthy growth of the tree, thereby it  _<\/p>\n
yield as well.\n<\/p>\n
13. Having these argurne’nts–_in
\nproceeded to consider the””s:eeond “‘c.on’tenti.enHof the<\/p>\n
appellant first. At  has there been any<\/p>\n
challenge with regard_’i’toV   of either
\narecanut   treesflovr—.other fruit bearing
\ntrees. What *i.s;”‘contend’eid .:is”asV”‘there are more than the
\nstandard trees  2 acres 21 guntas of land
\nin respeuct\u00e9of ‘Nyo}22 and 1 acre of land in respect<\/p>\n
of No.”12–Vl[_2H_,ythe yield cannot be as assessed by<\/p>\n
‘ ,:the.yReferevnce_ Court. But the basis for the Reference<\/p>\n
.’Co’urt to-Warrive at the value of arecanut and coconut<\/p>\n
 trees the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of<\/p>\n
  Court as stated above. It is not in dispute that<\/p>\n
‘Evaluation arrived at by said judgment of this Court was<\/p>\n
either modified or reduced by the Supreme Court or in a<\/p>\n
later judgment of this High Court. In that vie’w.,:bf_t’the<\/p>\n
matter, we are not persuaded to take a
\nIn fact, if We consider the cost:tof-yieldhtrorri,’ar’e.cant1tuu
\nand coconut trees, the Court   <\/p>\n
consideration, the total  terms-._o’f_,  <\/p>\n
selling leaves and Other parishcfujCoconut’*tor”Viarecanut
\ntrees. The valuation   statistics of
\nthe year    in the absence
\nof any  that in this part of
\nthe    coconut tree or arecanut
\ntree vtasv\ufb01less  determined by the Reference<\/p>\n
Court, 3 at ut11its’st’ag.e, rkthen no material is placed, this<\/p>\n
  of the beneficiary cannot be accepted, since<\/p>\n
 :as__  the other bene\ufb01ts from other parts of<\/p>\n
coconut  arecanut trees was not at ail taken into<\/p>\n
‘ A. c,o_nsid”eration.\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
14. Then coming to the valuation of<\/p>\n
Rs.6,16,564—O0 and Rs.16,810–OO in respect of Survey<\/p>\n
Nos.22 and 21\/ 2 respectively fixed by the <\/p>\n
being confirmed by the Reference Court,  <\/p>\n
force in the arguments of the appellants. .;IniV:re_spe’c<'t cf<\/p>\n
Survey No.22, the total nugmber:4'~a_f1'trees  <\/p>\n
guntas are 1960. If 1943 aateeanut an_ci'- trees'<\/p>\n
are deducted, the ba1ance_."c5i_ti\u00e9gggwpuidiHbe""17. The
\nValue of Rs.6,16,564-O01:_Visv"_'1'r\u00a7Vr prs11_ii9;5t;}1y':rees and the<\/p>\n
average value 1  RS314\/-. Once<\/p>\n
separate iva1u\u00bbati0f1–is41'1n'ade .fc5r arecanut and coconut
\ntrees, the valueci"..bther_if1<1;[it bearing trees has to be for<\/p>\n
17 trees and r:11'ot~the."en.tire 1960. At the rate of Rs.314~~<\/p>\n
. 'per5"~ti'ee,A~.the  cost of 17 other fruit bearing trees<\/p>\n
A  In"respect of Survey No.21\/ 2, the total number of<\/p>\n
 :_"tree_s  acre of land are 76. If 67 arecanut trees are
\ne.__1dedt,:cted, the balance of trees is 9. The value of<\/p>\n
 '"Rs.16,810-00 is for 76 trees and the average value of<\/p>\n
;   17 ot11er.fruit bearing trees 5,347-00<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
one tree would be at Rs.221\/–. Once separate valtration<\/p>\n
is made for arecanut trees, the vaiue of ot–he–r”\u00abfr’L1\u00a7t<\/p>\n
bearing trees has to be for 9 trees and not   <\/p>\n
At the rate of Rs.221–O0 per tre’e,’-\u00abthe-tuttfof  2<\/p>\n
other fruit bearing trees would   <\/p>\n
as other amounts awarded tox\ufb01fards structure dandjungle V’<\/p>\n
trees, we do not find good’ to triterfere at this
\nstage. So also regardthg.”st’a’ttit:oIfrf:_:Vheg\u00e9cfits awarded by
\nthe Reference    reason to modify
\nor interfere;  is
\nentitled  in respect of Survey<\/p>\n
No.22].  . A<\/p>\n
VFor 188-{PAr.e’ca11uVt”‘trees 12,81,120–OO
\n  59 c0conL1t.. trees 01,18,000–0O<\/p>\n
hp  p.Str1i_c,t’u~rVes’ 28,93o–oo
\nX Ju.ng1Z-$7 trees 2o,ooo-oo
\n‘ Total 14,53,397–oo<\/p>\n
3   15. In respect of Survey No.21\/2:<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
For 67 Arecanut trees 45,56O~VO-O_
\n9 other fruit bearing trees <\/p>\n
Structures
\nJungle trees <\/p>\n
Total   t  <\/p>\n
Accordingly, the ap9peia1~.._isA.al1_oWeci*_;invwjjarit by”<\/p>\n
reducing the quar1tun;_..__ _A’~\u00a2f”V-\u00bb_\u00a7;omAi5er1sation to
\nRs.14,53,397-O0 froth in respect of
\nSurvey 1\\I\ufb02o.224-and  No.21\/2 , the
\ncompensatiorf to Rs.49,57 1 -00 from
\nRs.64339″1t-oQv:.”.:v   benefits allowed by<\/p>\n
the Reference  the same.\n<\/p>\n
_._\u00a7’Having V’r’egard’:to the fact that the acquisition<\/p>\n
 :pi*o.c\u00a5eegi1ngs:r11ade in the year 1991, 1992 and 1993, the<\/p>\n
 and the 2nd respondent State are<\/p>\n
-V directedttovtieposit the compensation amount as stated<\/p>\n
 ‘2..f”aboveA together with other statutory benefits which are<\/p>\n
‘   by the Special LAO confirmed by the Reference<\/p>\n
I7<\/p>\n
Court to be deposited within three months from the date<\/p>\n
of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
Parties to bear their own cost.\n<\/p>\n
 r\u00a7esgti  <\/p>\n
 S f. E
\nff’  <\/p>\n
pS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 Author: Manjula Chellur B.V.Nagarathna (BY SRIIRAO VAS’SC3\ufb01’,iA’II’_ES, ADV.) AN IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED TI-IIS THE 24TH DAY or JULY, 2\u00a2e9 PRESENT I I THE I-ION’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJIILA THE I-ION’BLE MRS. JUSTICE”B.V.NA(3%ARA’fI-fI\u20acA”~ _ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229482","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-07T11:13:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-07T11:13:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2119,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\",\"name\":\"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-07T11:13:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-07T11:13:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-07T11:13:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009"},"wordCount":2119,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009","name":"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-07T11:13:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-karnataka-power-corporation-vs-shivaram-ramachandra-dhundi-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Karnataka Power Corporation vs Shivaram Ramachandra Dhundi on 24 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229482","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=229482"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229482\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229482"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229482"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229482"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}