Krishnegowda vs The Chief Engineer (Elec.), Mangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (MESCOM) and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—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.

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 sugarcane 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 of 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 this background, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. After careful perusal of the material available on record, specifically the agreement entered into between the parties vide Annexure-H, it can be seen that, petitioner has executed the said agreement letter on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- purchased from State Bank of Mysore, bearing No. BA/2.No. 484047, wherein petitioner has stated in unequivocal terms that, he has received a sum of Rs. 81,297/-from the Executive Engineer (Elec), MESCOM, Hassan Division as per the Official Memorandum issued by the Chief Engineer (Elec.), Mysore Zone, Mysore dated 1st January, 2004. Further, petitioner has stated in unambiguous terms that, since they have received the compensation from MESCOM regarding the loss of crops due to short circuit, neither the petitioner nor his children nor any of his family members would claim any further amount in that regard. Further, it is stated that, none of them would file any application seeking enhancement and that, the said amount received is in full and final settlement of the compensation in respect of the damage of standing crops due to short circuit. It has also been stated that, in case any dispute among the family members, petitioner would take responsibility and solve the same. Further, the said agreement is signed/sworn to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

Therefore, when petitioner himself has entered into an agreement with the respondent by executing the agreement on the stamp paper, by undertaking as aforesaid, in unequivocal terms, as referred above, it is not now open for him to come before this Court seeking the said reliefs, contrary to the undertaking given by him. However, if any of the terms and conditions of the agreement letter are violated, then, petitioner could have redressed his grievance before appropriate forum. I find any good grounds made out by petitioner to grant the relief sought for by him in the instant writ petition. Therefore, I decline to entertain the instant writ petition by interfering with the impugned official memorandum and the agreement, especially when petitioner himself has stated in unequivocal terms, as referred above. It is now not open to the petitioner to take a contrary stand than the one taken in the agreement. In an anxiety to get more compensation, petitioner has even gone to the extent of stating that, his signatures have been obtained on the agreement forcibly. The said stand does not inspire the confidence of the Court.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed.