KRISHNAGOWDA Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition has questioned the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 1st January 2004 vide Annexure-G issued by first respondent and to declare the agreement vide Annexure-H entered into between the parties. Further, petitioner has sought to declare the agreement and obtaining the signatures of the petitioner as illegal and void and consequently, declare that, the compensation awarded by respondents is unjust, improper and unreasonable and further to issue appropriate direction to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(2.) THE grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is a farmer and has got house and land bearing Survey No. 74 situate at Ragimuddanahalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District. It is the further case of petitioner that, in addition to existing eight coconut trees, petitioner had planted 100 coconut saplings during the year 1996-97. Petitioner also used to grow sugarcane crop and other subsidiary crops in between the coconut trees and saplings. It is the case of petitioner that, unfortunately on 20th December 2000, the entire sugar cane crop grown including the coconut trees were burnt on account of electric cables passing over the aforesaid land and thereby petitioner sustained huge loss to a tune of Rs. 2,25,000/ -. Accordingly, the fourth respondent has submitted his report to the Deputy Director of Horticulture and a Certificate is issued by the Horticulture Secretary. Thereafter, petitioner has requested the competent authority to pay the compensation in view of burning of the standing sugarcane crops and the coconut trees etc. , as referred above. His request has not been considered. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice through Counsel, claiming damages due to the passing of the electric cables over the land of petitioner, for no fault of him. It is the case of petitioner that, the competent authority, instead of considering the same and granting the compensation as claimed by him, has awarded only a sum Rs. 81,297/- and pleaded that, obtaining the signature of the petitioner on the agreement prepared by respondent that, the claim is in full and final settlement, is by force and the same is illegal and void. Having regard to his background, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents.