Karnataka High Court

Executive Engineer vs Sri Kanappa 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.19082/2014 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

  1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     MAJOR WORKS
     KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
     CORPORATION LTD.,
     R.HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING
     P.B.ROAD
     DAVANGERE-577002.

  2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
     MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION-I
     KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
     CORPORATION LTD.,
     JCR EXTENSION
     3RD CROSS (EAST)
     CHITRADURGA-577501.
                                       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR
 SRI. N KRISHNANANDA GUPTA, ADV.)

AND:

SRI KANAPPA
S/O LATE SRI. SIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O KANEHATTY
                              2

HIRIYURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.M T JAGAN MOHAN, ADV. )

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEX-D DATED
26.07.2013 PASSED IN MISC.NO.464/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND ETC.


    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India questioning the judgment

dated 26.07.2013 passed in Miscellaneous No.464/2012 on

the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at

Chitradurga, by which, compensation of Rs.50,000/- with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a., was awarded in addition to

Rs.9,500/- compensation given by the petitioner-Karnataka

Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short 'the

Corporation').

2. Parties to this writ petition would be referred to as they

stand before the trial Court. The petitioners herein were

respondents before the trial Court and the respondent herein

was the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition under Section

16(3) of Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 before the learned

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga District

seeking compensation for the utilization of his land by the

respondent-Corporation for drawing 400KV high tension

Double Circuit electric line over petitioner's land. Petitioner

claims that he is the owner in possession of Sy.No.169/P1

measuring 3 acres 19 guntas. It is contended by the

petitioner that the market value of his land was more than

Rs.10.00 lakhs as on the date of utilization of land to draw

high tension wire by the respondent-Corporation. The

respondent-Corporation on appearance filed its objections

contending that no land of the petitioner was acquired and

further stated that the petitioner was already paid an amount

of Rs.9,500/- which was accepted by the petitioner .

4. In support of his case, the petitioner got himself

examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. No

evidence was lead on behalf of the respondent-Corporation,

but, with consent, Ex.R1 was marked.

5. The learned District Judge based on the material on

record awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. taking the diminutive value of

the land at 50%. The respondents are before this Court in

this writ petition, aggrieved by grant of compensation taking

diminutive value of the land at 50%.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent-

Corporation Sri.H.V.Devaraju and perused the writ petition

papers along with trial Court records.

7. Learned counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju for respondents

would submit that the trial Court committed an error in

taking the diminutive value of the land at 50% of the market

value. It is his submission that the petitioner's land is not

acquired nor possession of the land is taken by the

respondents. It is his further submission that 400KV high

tension line passes through petitioner's land only to an extent

of 29.07 guntas. It is submitted that petitioner can grow the

crops as he was growing earlier. Learned counsel would

invite the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.1

wherein he has deposed that he was growing Onion,

Groundnut, Jawar, Cotton and Sunflower. For growing those

agricultural crops, the high tension wire would not come in

the way. As such, relying upon the decision of this Court in

the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA

POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,

CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER v/s DODDAKKA reported in

2014(6) Kar.L.J. 185, learned counsel prays this Court to

adopt 30% diminutive value of the land for awarding

compensation to the petitioner.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner in

possession of the land in Sy.No.169/P1 measuring 3 acres 19

guntas at Aimangala village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga

District. It is also not in dispute that respondents had drawn

400KV high tension wire over the petitioner's land. The high

tension wire passes over the petitioner's land to an extent of

29.07 guntas. The only contention urged by the learned

counsel for the respondents is that the learned District Judge

committed an error in taking 50% of the market value as

diminutive value of the land of the petitioner. It is true that

the petitioner's land is not acquired nor possession is taken

by the respondents, on the other hand the land rests with the

petitioner. In his evidence, the petitioner has clearly stated

that he was growing Onion, Groundnut, Cotton, Jawar and

Sunflower prior to erection of high tension line. Hence,

drawing up of high tension wire would not prevent or

prejudice the petitioner from growing Onion, Groundnut,

Cotton, Jawar or Sunflower, as he was growing earlier. But,

it may prevent planting of tall trees.

9. This Court in the decision referred to supra has held

that while calculating diminutive value of the land, all

relevant factors such as potential to grown horticultural crops

or any other crops is to be taken note of. Paragraph 24 of the

said decision reads 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. In the instant case also, even though high tension wire

is drawn on the land of the petitioner, the petitioner is not

prevented from growing crops as stated by him in his

evidence. That he had an intention of planting Coconut trees,

areca nut trees cannot be taken note of, while determining

the diminutive value of his land. Definitely, drawing up of

high tension electric wire would diminish the value of the

land, but taking diminutive value at 50% in the instant case

is on higher side. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner

was growing Onion, Groundnut, Cotton, Sunflower and

Jawar, etc., and drawing high tension wire over his land

would not prevent or deprive growing such crops, except