Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (Electrical) vs Sri Basavaraju on 28 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24282
WP No. 6756 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 6756 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHI THOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION IV
K.P.T.C.L, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJU,
Digitally S/O. NINGE GOWDA,
signed by
KIRAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
KUMAR R R/O. MARASANDRA VILLAGE,
Location: KASABA HOBLI,
HIGH
COURT OF CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
KARNATAKA TUMAKURU DIST,
TUMKUR - 572 114.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PATEL D KARE GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 11.12.2018 IN MIS.NO.10024/2015 PASSED BY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24282
WP No. 6756 of 2020
THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR
(ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the award of enhanced compensation of Rs.19,22,984/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum by the District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that there are two errors in the order. She submits that the District Judge had committed an error in taking the yield of coconuts per tree as '180', which ought to be taken as '150'. She further states that the value of the neem trees has been taken at 'Rs.15,000/-', which ought to be taken at 'Rs.13,000/-', for which she has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.12477/2021, where this Court has reduced the value of the neem trees from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.13,000/-. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24282 WP No. 6756 of 2020
3. She also submits that the calculation error in para 36 of the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to calculating the value of the 44 neem trees, she submits that if the value of the neem trees is to be accepted at Rs.15,000/-, for 44 neem trees the sum awarded should have been 'Rs.6,60,000/-' and not 'Rs.13,20,000/-'.
4. In my view, the first two arguments that there were errors in respect of the yield of coconuts per tree and regarding the value of the neem trees cannot be accepted.
5. In my view, the District Judge has exercised its discretion in coming to the conclusion that the average yield of a coconut tree was '180'. This is obviously having regard to the fact that the coconut trees that are grown in Chikkanayakanalli Taluk do yield a higher number of coconuts as compared to other taluks.
6. The second argument that the value of the neem trees ought to be 'Rs.13,000/-' as has been accepted by this Court, cannot also be accepted.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:24282 WP No. 6756 of 2020
7. This court, in the aforementioned petition, in the factual context of the case, modified the value of the neem trees at 'Rs.13,000/-'. This Court has not determined that the value of the neem trees should be 'Rs.13,000/-' in all cases.
8. In my view, the Trial Court after taking into consideration that the estimated valuation made by the Range Forest Officer which was for the year 2001-02 and taking into consideration that the trees fell in the year 2014-15, the determination of value at Rs.15,000/- cannot be found fault with. Consequently, the valuation made by the Trial Court insofar as it relates to the yield of the coconut trees and the value of the neem tree is accepted.
9. However, it is noticed that the District Judge has, in fact, committed an error in arriving at the total value of the 44 neem trees. If the value of the neem trees is to be accepted as 'Rs.15,000/-' for the 44 neem trees, the amount payable would only be 'Rs.6,60,000/-' and not 'Rs.13,20,000/-'. Hence, to that extent, the amount of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:24282 WP No. 6756 of 2020 'Rs.13,20,000/-' found in para 36 of the impugned judgment is substituted with the figure 'Rs.6,60,000/-'.
10. In all other respects, the award of the District Judge is confirmed. The amounts shall be recalculated by taking into consideration that the value of the neem trees would be 'Rs.6,60,000/-' and the entire compensation shall be paid accordingly. Amounts, if any, paid shall also be given due deduction. Subject to the above, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33