PEJAVAR CHITANANDA RAO Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are land-holders have filed these Revision Petitions questioning the correctness of the orders passed in Misc. Case Nos. 8,9 and 10/96 dated 10. 3. 2000 passed by the district Judge, Mangalore, in dismissing the petitioners. The petitioners have further prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and prayed to allow their claim by enhancing the compensation amount under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (in short 'the Act of 1885), urging various legal contentions.

(2.) AGGRIEVED of the award of compensation awarded by the erstwhile Karnataka Electricity board now replaced by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. , (herein after in short called as 'corporation'), petitioners land-holders filed petitions before the District Judge, mangalore claiming enhanced compensation amount by way of damages under the provision of section 10 of the Act against the respondents for having sustained diminition of the land value on account of drawing HT power lines upon their lands by the first respondent for the benefit of second respondent. They contended that the value of their lands has been diminished on account of drawing of HT lines and therefore they are entitled for the damages and the first respondent has not exercised its power under Section 10 of the Act properly keeping in view the relevant aspects namely the diminution the value of the land and other related factors and therefore they claimed enhanced compensation in respect of the lands in question. In support of their claim, one witness PW1 was examined and on behalf of respondents RW. 1 was examined, produced and marked documents Ex. P1 to P5 and D1 to D7 respectively.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for petitioners-land holders produced the deposition of RW. 1 and report of the Commissioner who had executed the commission warrant and submitted a report on 25. 9. 1999 along with sketch of the lands in question upon which the HT lines have been drawn by the first respondent for supply of power to the second respondent who is the beneficiary drawing HT Lines by Corporation upon the lands of the petitioners. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, three points were formulated by the District Judge for his consideration and answered the same in the Award which read thus: