KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. M B BORAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Karnataka Electricity Board, by its Chairman and Executive Engineer, major works, K. E. B. , Mysore have preferred the above C. R. P. against the Miscellaneous No. 17/1988, under which an order was passed by the District Judge, Mandya u/s. 16 (3) and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act r/w. Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act granting for award of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- in respect of the claim made by the respondent herein.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the respondent was the owner in possession of the residential house at Shankarnagar, Mandya City measuring 60' x 40' including the vacant site. He purchased the vacant site under registered sale deed dated 10-12-1975. When he purchased the site, there was 66 KVS electric line passing over the property which was otherwise known as Simsha-Mandya line. At the time of construction, he approached the petitioner authority and represented that the line was passing on the residential area and it was dangerious to the public health and safety. On such representation they expressed their intention to shift the line from that place and accordingly, no objection is granted in favour of the petitioner to construct the house after getting the approval and constructed the house by spending Rs. 2,45,000/ -. The 2nd petitioner herein removed the said line and also the electric iron poles installed on the South western corner of the house. Thereafter, the petitioner converted the portion out of the western portion as a kitchen garden and also put up cow shed in the remaining area. But, it appears that the 2nd petitioner herein made an unlawful and illegal attempt to occupy the whole vacant portion of the property including the cow shed. They wanted to occupy the whole area to draw and to put up electric tower and to draw double circuit line. When the objection was raised by the respondent herein and such objection was not heeded to the respondent filed a suit in O. S. No. 299/1987 and obtained an interim order of injunction. Injunction was granted by the trial Court. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent approached the District Judge in M. A. No. 29/1987. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein again approached the District Magistrate u/s. 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act for removal of construction raised by the petitioner herein. The said appeal came to be allowed on 18-12-1987 and that was even confirmed by this Court in W. P. No. 19139/87 confirming the order of the District Judge. However, while disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court ordered that the respondent is entitled to get adequate compensation for his house and other properties. On the basis of such direction from this Court, the petitioner claimed total sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation with interest.

(3.) PETITIONER herein contended that they were in occupation of the entire area and consequently they are not liable to pay any compensation.