Karnataka High Court
Superintendent Engineer vs Sri. Narasimhamurthy on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.49382 OF 2016 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISISON
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMKUR TOWN - 572 102.
TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISISON
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMKUR TOWN - 572 102.
TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION -4,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISISON
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMKUR TOWN - 572 102.
TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O KADARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
R/O LAKKENAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK - 572 216. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri. H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioners has
appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Miscellaneous
Case No.224/2013 before the VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumkur, and sought for enhanced
compensation.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the
land bearing Survey No.239 of Lekkenahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District. The KPTCL
has drawn High Tension Electric Line over the petitioner's
land. It is said that they have cut and removed 03 Honge
trees, 1 Tamarind tree, 3 Neem trees, 2 Forest trees, 14
mango trees, 1 Jali tree and 1 Banyan tree.
It is stated that the compensation paid is very
meager and the Authority has not adopted capitalization
method and adopted an unscientific method and the
compensation paid is not in accordance with the market
rate of the relevant year.
It is also stated that since there is a drawing up of
high-tension wire over the land, there is diminution of
value of the land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation with interest at 15% per annum.
After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed
statement of objections. They admitted that they have
drawn 110/11 K.V. Electric Transmission Line through the
petitioner's land and that notice was issued to remove 3
Honge trees, 1 Tamarind tree, 3 Neem trees, 2 Forest
trees, 14 Mango trees, 1 Jali tree and 1 Banyan tree. The
compensation awarded by the Authority is based on the
report of the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture.
Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper.
Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and produced
19 documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-19.
One Sri.N.K.Shivanagendra was examined as RW-1 and he
produced 4 documents and the same was marked as
Ex.R-1 R-4.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order
dated:20.04.2016 awarded compensation of Rs.5,28,500/-
(Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred
only) less the compensation already paid by the Authority
with cost and with interest of 8% per annum from the date
of petition till realization.
It is this order which is challenged in this Writ
Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India on various grounds as set out in the Memorandum of
Writ Petition.
4. Sri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel submits that
the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the
KPTCL have paid the compensation based on the report of
the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department.
He has assessed the compensation to be paid on the
formula and guidance issued by the Government of
Karnataka from time to time. The compensation paid was
just and proper. Hence, interfering with the same by
further enhancing the compensation has resulted in
causing great prejudice to the interest and right of the
Authority.
Next, he submitted that the Trial Court erred in
deducting the cost of cultivation only at Rs.100/-. The
same is without any basis.
It is further submitted that the Apex Court and this
Court in various judgments held that the cost of cultivation
in respect of fruit bearing trees should be calculated at
30%. Hence, the same needs interference.
Lastly, he submitted that learned Trial Court erred in
not taking into consideration the vital and key facts that
the Authority have already paid the compensation and the
petitioner has received the same without any protest nor
has he filed any objections before the Horticulture
Department regarding assessment of valuation of the
trees. Hence, a grave error has committed by enhancing
the compensation and the award of 8% interest is totally
unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he submitted that award
of compensation requires modification and therefore,
submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
petitioners and perused the Annexures with care.
6. The short question which arises for
consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the
Trial Court requires modification?
The facts are not in dispute. While addressing
argument, learned counsel for petitioners strenuously
urged that the total value of the amount in respect of
Mango tree requires re-consideration by this Court for the
simple reason that the learned Trial Judge has deducted
Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred only) towards cost of
cultivation instead of 30% per tree.
Counsel also has drawn the attention of the Court to
the decision reported in THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KPTCL, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER V. DODDAKKA
- ILR 2015 KAR 677.
I have carefully perused the order passed by the
Trial Court and it could be seen from the order, learned
Trial Judge has deducted Rs.100/- towards cost of
cultivation. But as per DODDAKKA's case, the cost of
cultivation should be deducted at 30%. Hence in my
opinion, the award of compensation requires modification.
If we deduct 30% of cost of cultivation in so far as
Mango tree is concerned, the calculation will be as under:
CALCULATION OF MANGO TREES:
SL.NO. NO. OF TREES YIELD PRICE
(Rs.)
1. 14 125 30/-
• 125X30X10= 37,500/-
• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 37,500x30/100= 11,250/-
• 37,500-11,250= Rs.26,250/- per tree
• 26,250x14= Rs.3,67,500 /- (for 14 Mango trees).
The compensation awarded so far as other trees is
unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1. Mango Tree - Rs.3,67,500/-
2. Silver Tree 6,000/-
3. Banian Tree 2,000/-
4. Nerale Tree 2,000/-
5. Neem Tree 4,500/-
6. Jali Tree 3,000/-
--------------
Total compensation - 3,85,000/-
---------------
Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
petitioner is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.3,85,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Five Thousand
only).
Learned counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that the
Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.1,67,506/- (Rupees
One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Six
only) while drawing up of the line.
Submission is noted.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,17,494/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Four
only) is to be paid to the petitioner with interest at the rate
of 8% from the date petition till realization.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
order dated:20.04.2016 passed by the Court of VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru in Civil
Misc.No.224/2013 is modified. The petitioner is entitled for
balance compensation of Rs.2,17,494/- (Rupees Two Lakh
Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Four only)
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall
deposit the balance amount within six weeks from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
