Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs Sri M.T. Chandrashekareddy on 7 January, 2021

Author: S.G.Panditpresided Bysgpj

 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

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

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

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,

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

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.

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

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

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: