The Executive Engineer and The Chief Engineer Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. vs Smt. H.S. Sarojamma, State of Karnataka, Department of Power and Energy and The Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District

D.H. Waghela, C.J.—After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the present appeal has been filed without consideration of the correct translation of Annexure-D to the petition, in terms of which the impugned order has been made by learned Single Judge. The impugned order dated 12.02.2013 of learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 3867/2013 merely directed respondent No. 3, the appellant herein, to discharge their obligation in terms of the letter dated 14.06.2012, which was annexed with the original petition as Annexure-D. Learned counsel for the original petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein, appearing on caveat was requested to furnish to the Court correct translation of the aforesaid letter dated 14.06.2012 (Annexure-D) issued by the appellant herein. The relevant part of that letter stated that the branches of trees will be removed to maintain the required distance for transmission of 400 KV electricity line and informed the original petitioner that if there were soil erosion in any manner of the land belonging to the original petitioner, the appellant herein would be responsible to rectify it. The original petitioner was further assured by the said letter that only the branches of the trees would be cut and there may not be any soil erosion.

Since, the original petitioner had approached this Court with the grievance that the appellants herein were laying high tension electricity line affecting the agricultural activity of the petitioner and had called upon the appellants herein to construct a concrete retaining wall to the extent the channel was passing through his land bearing Sy. No. 13, he has also relied upon the aforesaid letter at Annexure-D. With that background, in brief, the main prayer made by the original petitioner was for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents in the petition to construct a concrete retaining wall on the boundary of Sy. No. 13, which was exposed to erosion of soil due to flooding of Yennahole stream.

It clearly appears from the impugned order that the appellant herein had not disputed before learned Single Judge that they had undertaken to set right the erosion of soil on account of cutting of trees. However, even after considering the recommendation of the officers concerned of Forest Department and of Minor Irrigation Department, the Court has not issued any direction for construction of any concrete retaining wall as prayed by the original petitioner. Therefore, it was fairly conceded by learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein, that on the correct reading of the impugned order and the letter dated 14.06.2012, no distinct direction for construction of any retention wall could be discerned and, even without the impugned order, the appellant is bound by its own promise made in the letter dated 14.06.2012. It was on that basis submitted that the impugned order practically and in substance only reminds the appellant about their obligation arising from the letter dated 14.06.2012 and the direction to abide by that letter could not and ought not to have been challenged by the appellants.

However, in order to clarify the situation and avoid further litigation among the parties, it was specifically put to learned counsel Mr. Subramanya R., appearing for the original petitioner, as to whether any direction as prayed in the original petition could be discerned and whether the original petitioner could legally insist upon translating the impugned order into a direction to construct a concrete retaining wall. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the original petitioner maintained complete silence in reply. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, the appeal is not required to be entertained and no further direction or clarification is required to be issued as prayed by the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in-limine, along with the interim applications made therein, with the observation that the original petitioner shall be at liberty to claim relief, in accordance with law, on proof of any damage to his property and pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 14.06.2012.