IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.44503/2014 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA,
K.P.T.C.L,
R.HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING,
P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577516.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA,
SUB DIVISION-1,
KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, KPTCL,
CHITRADURGA-577511.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. ADITI GURJER, ADV. FOR
SRI.JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV.)
AND:
KARIYAMMA
W/O OBALESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O C.N.MAALIGE VILLAGE,
HIRIYURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER IN MISC.NO.49/2013 DATED 07.01.2014, ON THE FILE
OF PROCEEDING OFFICER, LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, THE COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED
AS ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the judgment dated 01.07.2014 in Miscellaneous No.49/2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga by which, the respondent is awarded compensation of Rs.57,325/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., taking diminutive value of the land at 50% of the market value of the land.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner in possession of land bearing R.S.No.13/P3 to an extent of 5 acres situated at Adiraalu, Imangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, 3 Chitradurga District. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-Corporation drew electricity line of 400 KV high tension wire through respondent's land. The respondent preferred petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 claiming compensation. The respondent-landlord contended that the land had bore well and she was growing Kanakambara, Coconut, Arecanut, Banana, Sunflower, Jawar, Ragi, Maize, Groundnut, Bengal Gram, Onion and cotton crops by which, she was getting income of Rs.2.00 lakhs per acre. Due to drawing of high tension wire, value of the land has diminished and she is not in a position to get the same income which she was earning earlier.
3. The petitioners-Corporation appeared before the trial Court and contested the petition by filing objections. It is stated in the objections that the respondent-landlord has received compensation and there is no provision for awarding compensation for diminutive value of the land. It is also 4 contended that respondent's land is not near to the City and the value of the land is less. Further it is contended that land is not acquired and possession remains with the respondent.
4. The respondent-landlord in order to prove his case examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The petitioners/Corporation had not lead any evidence, but filed their memo of calculation as per Ex.R1.
5. Based on the material on record, the learned District Judge awarded total compensation of Rs.57,825/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. adopting 50% diminutive value. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-Corporation is before this Court in this writ petition.
6. Heard Miss.Aditi Gurjer, learned counsel for Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioners. Even though the respondent is served with court notice, she remained absent.
5
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the learned District Judge committed an error in adopting 50% diminutive value of the land for awarding compensation. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the trial Judge committed an error in taking the land value at Rs.1,875/- per gunta for which there is no basis. It is also submitted that the land of the respondent is not acquired nor taken possession. The high tension wire passes through the land measuring 61.68 guntas only. Since the possession of the land remains with the respondent, it is submitted that the respondent-landlord would not be entitled for compensation. Thus, prays for allowing the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the writ petition papers as well as trial Court records, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the learned District Judge is justified in taking 50% of the market value as diminutive value for the purpose of calculating compensation.
6
9. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons:
It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner in possession of the agricultural land bearing R.S.No.13/p3 to an extent of 5 acres situated at Adiraalu village, Imangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. The petitioner- Corporation has drawn 400KV high tension wire over the agricultural land of the respondent-landlord. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners-Corporation itself has filed memo of calculation as per Annexure-R1 indicating that high tension wire has passed through the land of respondent- landlord to an extent of 61.68 guntas. It is true that possession of the land remains with the respondent-landlord, but the landlord would be deprived of growing trees like, areca nut, coconut and teak trees where high tension wire passes through. Since the respondent would be deprived of growing trees in the land over which high tension wire passes through, value of the land gets diminished. But, it is to be 7 noticed that the petitioner could grow certain other crops in the said land. But, the respondent-landlord would not be deprived of cultivating the land in its entirety.
10. The respondent-landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are Record of Rights and Ex.P3 is the statement issued by the Sub- Registrar, Hiriyur indicating the market value of the lands. Ex.P3 would indicate the land value of various types of land. Respondent's land is irrigated through pump set. The value of the lands irrigated through Bore well and pump set is shown Rs.75,000/- per acre. Learned District Judge while calculating the land value of the petitioner has considered Ex.P3 and has come to the conclusion that the land values at Rs.1,875/- per gunta which is proper and correct. I do not find any error in valuing the land at Rs.1,875/- per gunta based on Ex.P3.
11. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in taking 50% of the market value as diminutive value which 8 requires to be reduced to 30%. As stated above, the potentiality of the land has not diminished. The respondent- landlord could grow crops except the trees like areca nut, coconut and teak trees. This Court, in a decision reported in (2014) 6 KLJ 185 in the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER v/s DODDAKKA at paragraph 24 has held as follows:
"24. As regards the diminution value of the land falling within the corridor, the learned District Judge having determined the market value of the land has awarded 50% of the same as diminution value. It cannot be disputed that though the farmer is not capable of growing trees underneath the corridor, he is not totally deprived of utilizing the land for carrying out other agricultural operations. He is entitled to grow other crops, which may not affect the high voltage transmission line. Though the farmer is deprived of the opportunity to utilize the land to its full potential and grow horticulture crops, particularly consisting of trees and other luxurious shrubs, he is capable of utilizing the land.9
The title of the land continues to vest in him. It is, no doubt, true that his access to the land and use of the same by erecting any pole, shed or any other installation will be restricted. In a case like this where high voltage transmission line is drawn across the land, utilization of the other portion of the land is also affected. Therefore, all these factors have to be taken into consideration before determining the diminution in the land value on account of drawing of high voltage electrical line. If these relevant factors are borne in mind, particularly having regard to the photographs produced and the evidence adduced by the claimant-landowner, I find that 30% of the market value of the area affected shall have to be paid as diminution value of the land to the farmer."
12. The respondent in her evidence has specifically stated that she was growing Onion, Groundnut, Cotton, Sunflower, Corn, Jawar etc. Drawing of high tension line over the respondent's land would not deprive the respondent from growing the above said agricultural crops. But the respondent would not be in a position to grow horticultural 10 crops particularly trees. The respondent landlord would be deprived of using his land to its fullest potentiality. Hence, there would be diminution in value of land to some extent and not to the extent of 50% as assessed by Trial Court. By following the above decision, I deem it appropriate to hold that taking diminutive value of the land at 50% of the market value by the learned District Judge is not proper and the same be reduced to 30%. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is modified to calculate the compensation taking diminutive value of the land at 30% of the market value. The market value taken by the learned District Judge at Rs.1,875/- per gunta is proper and correct. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled for total compensation, which is as follows:
Rs.1,875/- per gunta x 61.68 guntas x 30/100 = Rs.34,695/- per gunta.
13. The respondent-landlord would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.34,695/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till payment. The writ petition is allowed 11 and the judgment of the learned trial Judge is modified to the above extent.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms