IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO.20110/2014 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
KAVERI BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
DIRECTOR (ADMN. & HRD).
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
R-HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING,
P.B. ROAD, DAVANGERE-577001.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
SUB DIVISION-1, KSRTC DEPOT ROAD,
CHITRADURGA-577501.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.H.V. DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR
SRI. N KRISHNANANDA GUPTA, ADV.)
2
AND:
SRI M.T. CHANDRASHEKAREDDY
S/O. LATE THIMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT DANDINAKURUBARAHALLY,
CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANN-D DATED
10.06.2013 PASSED IN MISC.NO.91/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE 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 10.06.2013 in Misc.No.91/2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by which, petition of the respondent filed under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 is partly allowed and 3 compensation of Rs.41,681/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is granted.
2. Parties to this petition would be referred to as they stand before the trial Court. The petitioners herein were respondents and respondent herein was the petitioner before the trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, claiming compensation for the utilization of his land for drawing up of 66KV high tension electricity line over his land in R.S.No.341/P2 to an extent of 44.46 guntas situated at Doddasiddavanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. The petitioner claims that he is owner in possession of 8 acres 24 guntas in R.S.No.341/P2 of Doddasiddavanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. It is stated that due to drawing up of high tension wire, value of the land has diminished and the petitioner is not in a position to grow areca nut and coconut trees where high tension wire is 4 drawn. As the value of the land is diminished, nobody is coming forward to purchase the land, as such, he had sought for compensation of Rs.7,64,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.
4. The respondents contested the petition by filing objections contending that the Corporation has already paid a sum of Rs.14,825/- as compensation in full and final settlement to the petitioner, which was accepted by him. Further it is contended that possession of the land remains with the petitioner himself. As the petitioner was growing Onion, Jawar etc., the same can be grown even though high tension wire passes over the land of the petitioner. As such, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Before the trial Court, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The respondents, with consent marked Ex.R1. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge under the impugned order granted compensation of Rs.41,681/- with interest at 5 the rate of 6% p.a., taking diminutive value of the land at 50% of the market value. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Corporation is before this Court in this writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju for petitioners and perused the original records. Even though court notice is served on the respondent, he remained absent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.H.V.Devaraju would contend that the trial Court committed an error in granting compensation taking 50% of the market value as diminutive value of the land. It is his submission that possession of the land remains with the petitioner and he would be in a position to grow the same crops as he was growing earlier. Drawing up of high tension wire over the land of the petitioner would not be an impediment for growing the crops which are stated by the petitioner in his evidence. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the high tension wire existed since 1966 and during the year 2007-08, 6 the existing line was replaced by new line. As such, the petitioner cannot contend that he had grown areca nut and coconut trees in that portion of the land where the high tension wire passes through. Thus, he prays for allowing the petition to the above extent.
8. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court committed an error in taking 50% of the market value as diminutive value of petitioner's land. It is an admitted fact that even though petitioner-Corporation has erected high tension electric line over the petitioner's land, possession of the land remains with the petitioner. Electric High tension wire passes over the petitioner's land to an extent of 44.46 guntas. In his evidence, the petitioner has stated that he was growing Onion, Groundnut, Cotton, Sunflower, Jawar, etc. To grow the said crops, drawing up of high tension wire over the petitioner's land would be of no consequence. Only if the petitioner had planted coconut or areca nut trees, the same 7 would have been affected. Even though the petitioner has stated in his evidence that he had grown coconut and areca nut trees numbering 4, it cannot be believed in the facts of the present case.
9. It is an admitted fact that high tension wire was erected initially in the year 1966 and it was only replaced by new line in the year 2007-08. As the high tension wire already existed from the year 1966, the petitioner could not have grown areca nut or coconut trees where the high tension wire passes through in his land. When a high tension wire is erected over the land, definitely value of the land diminishes. But, the only question is as to what would be the diminutive value to be taken, when the electric line is erected over the lands. In the instant case, the diminutive value of the land taken by the trial Court at 50% of the market value is on higher side. If the crops grown by the petitioner is taken note of, the petitioner in his evidence has categorically stated that he was growing Onion, Groundnut, Cotton, Sunflower, Jawar, etc. 8 For growing such crops, erection of high tension wire would not come in the way. 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. The title of the land continues to vest in him. It is, no doubt, true that his access to the land and use 9 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."
10. This Court, in the above decision has held that while arriving at diminutive value, all factors such as crops grown, etc., is to be taken note of. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it appropriate to determine the diminutive value of the petitioner's land at 30% instead of 50% which is taken by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. The market value of the land assessed by the trial Court based on Ex.P4 at Rs.1,875/- per 10 gunta is proper and correct. Thus, taking the diminutive value of the petitioner's land at 30%, the petitioner would be entitled for the following compensation as against Rs.41,681/- awarded by the learned trial Court:
Rs.1,875/- per gunta x 44.46 guntas x 30/100 = Rs.25,008/-
11. The writ petition is allowed in part and the judgment dated 10.06.2013 in Misc. No.91/2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga is modified to the above extent.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms