Karnataka High Court

Superintendent Engineer vs L.Panchaksharaiah 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.41778 OF 2016 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1.     SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
       KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISISON
       CORPORATION LTD,
       KOTHI THOPU ROAD, TUMKUR.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
       K.P.T.C.L., MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT,
       KOTHI THOPU ROAD, TUMKUR.

3.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
       NO.4, MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT,
       K.P.T.C.L., KOTHI THOPU ROAD,
       TUMKUR.                       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

L. PANCHAKSHARAIAH
S/O VEERAIAH @ VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
R/O LAKKENAHALLI,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR - 572 103.                   ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)
                               2




      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

Smt.S.Shubha, learned counsel on behalf of

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.183/2013 before the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, and sought for enhanced

compensation.

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the

land bearing Survey No.204/1 of Lekkenahally Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakur District. The KPTCL

has drawn High Tension Electric Line over the land of the

petitioner. It is said that they have cut and removed 32

Mango trees and one Byala 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 and that they have adopted the

rates prevalent as on 2007-2008.

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. Notice was issued to remove 32 Mango

trees, and one Byala tree. The compensation paid 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

16 documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16.

One Sri.N.K.Shivanagendra was examined as RW-1 and he

produced one document and the same was marked as

Ex.R-1.

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide

order dated 30.01.2016 awarded compensation of

Rs.14,28,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Twenty Eight

Thousand only) less the compensation already paid by the

Authority. The interest of 8% per annum was also awarded

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. Smt.Shubha.S, learned counsel submits that

learned Trial Judge erred in not appreciating the fact that

the KPTCL 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, she submitted that the Trial Court committed a

grave error in arriving at a conclusion that a Mango tree

aged about 25 years will yield 150 k.g. per year which is

highly exorbitant.

Counsel vehemently urged that learned Trial Judge

has deducted only Rs.100/- annually towards cost of

cultivation of 32 Mango trees and one Byala tree which is

very negligible and cannot be accepted.

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, she submitted that learned Trial Judge erred

in not taking into consideration the vital and key facts that

the Authority has already paid and the petitioner has

received compensation amount 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, she 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 trees and Byala tree requires re-consideration by

this Court for the simple reason that learned 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 under as

under:

I.         CALCULATION OF MANGO TREES:


SL.NO.          NO. OF TREES              YIELD              PRICE
                                                             (Rs.)
      1.                 32                 150               30/-


      •    150X30X10= 45,000/-

      •    30% Cost of Cultivation = 45,000X30/100= 13,500/-

      •    45,000-13,500= Rs.31,500/- per tree

      •    31,500X32= Rs.10,08,000/- (for 13 Mango trees).


II.        CALCULATION OF BYALA TREE

 20,000 X 1= 20,000/-

30% COST OF CULTIVATION 20,000x30/100= 6,000

20,000-6000= 14,000/-.

Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:-

1. Mango Tree              -Rs.10,08,000/-
2. Byala Tree                       14,000/-
                                --------------
Total compensation         -     10,22,000/-
                                ---------------

Taking into consideration the above calculation, the

petitioner is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.10,22,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Twenty Two Thousand

only).

Learned counsel Smt.Shubha.S., submits that the

Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.3,61,056/- (Rupees

Three Lakh Sixty One Thousand Fifty Six only) while

drawing up of the line. Further a sum of Rs.4,76,407/-

(Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred

and Seven only) is deposited on 19.12.2017 before the

District Court.

Submission is noted.