Karnataka High Court
Superintendent Engineer vs K.B. Chandrashekhar on 20 January, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.50747 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU - 572 103.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)
MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT
K.P.T.C.L., KOTITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU - 572 103.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELECT.), NO.2, MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU - 572 103.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.UTTUR PADMAVATI SURESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
K.B.CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O K.M.BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O KODINAGENAHALLI
NITTUR POST, NITTUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK - 572 216. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH)
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 PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Uttur Padmavati Suresh, learned counsel for
petitioners and Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for
respondent have appeared through video conferencing.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
3. The facts are stated as under.
It is stated that the claimant is the owner of an
agricultural land bearing Sy.No.30/4, measuring 1 acre 20
guntas situated at N.Rampura Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi
Taluk, Tumakuru District. There were horticultural crops
like Coconut, Arecanut, Jali and Neem trees. The KPTCL -
Authority have drawn High Tension Electric Line over the
land of the claimant, hence they have cut and removed the
trees in the said portion. They have awarded meager
compensation of Rs.1,27,181/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty
Seven Thousand One Hundred and Eighty one only).
It is stated that the Authority has not adopted the
capitalization method while determining the value of the
trees and the approach of the Authority is totally
unscientific and without considering the present value of
the trees. Contending that the compensation so paid is not
in accordance with the market value of the relevant year,
the claimant sought for enhancement of compensation.
On receipt of notice, the KPTCL filed objections and
admitted that they have drawn 110/11 K.V. Electric Line
over the land of the claimant. It is also contended that
they have not acquired a single bit of land, and they have
assessed the value of the trees as per the report of the
Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture and paid suitable
compensation to the claimant. The claimant received the
compensation amount without any protest, and he has not
filed any objection before the Horticulture Department
regarding assessment of valuation of the trees. They
stated that the compensation paid is in accordance with
law and accordingly they prayed for the dismissal of the
claim petition.
After the action of the trial, the trial Court awarded
compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy
Seven Thousand only) with interest at 8% per annum from
the date of petition till realization.
Aggrieved by the order, the Authority KPTCL has
preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
4. Smt.Uttur Padmavati Suresh, learned counsel
submits that the award of compensation of Rs.1,77,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand only) with
interest of 8% per annum from the date of petition till
realization is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be
set aside.
Learned Judge 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.
Counsel vehemently urged that learned Judge has
deducted only Rs.100/- annually towards cost of
cultivation.
It is further submitted that the Apex Court has held
in various judgments that the cost of cultivation in respect
of fruit bearing trees should be calculated at 30%. Hence,
the same needs interference.
Accordingly, she submitted that award of
compensation requires modification in so far as Coconut
and Arecanut trees are concerned and therefore, submitted
that the writ petition may be allowed.
5. Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for
respondent justified the award passed by the trial Court.
Counsel submitted that the trial Court in extenso
referred to the material on record and justified in
enhancing the compensation.
It is also submitted that the petitioners have not
made out any good grounds to interfere with the award
accordingly, he submitted that appropriate order may be
passed.
6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the
petitioners and respondent and perused the Annexures
with care.
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
Coconut and Arecanut trees requires re-consideration by
this Court for the simple reason that learned Judge has
deducted Rs.100/- and Rs.20/- respectively, towards cost
of cultivation instead of 30% per tree.
Counsel has also 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
Judge has deducted Rs.100/- and Rs.20/- towards cost of
cultivation of Coconut and Arecanut trees. 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.
CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREE:
SL.NO. NO. OF AGE YIELD PRICE
TREES (Rs.)
1. 07 22 150 10/-
150X10X10= 15,000/-
30% Cost of Cultivation = 15,000X30/100= 4,500/-
15,000-4500= Rs.10,500/- per tree
10,500X7= Rs.73,500/- (for seven coconut trees).
CALCULATION OF ARECANUT TREE:
SL.NO. NO. OF AGE YIELD PRICE
TREES (Rs.)
1. 30 10 2 k.g. 150
PER K.G.
150X2X10= 3,000/-
30% Cost of Cultivation = 3000X30/100= 900/-
3000-900= Rs.2,100/- per tree
2100X30= Rs.63,000/- (for thirty arecanut trees).
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:-
1. Coconut Tree - 73,500/-
2. ArecaNut Tree - 63,000/-
3. Jali Tree - 2,000/-
4. Neem Tree - 2,000/-
--------------
Total compensation - 1,40,500/-
---------------
Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.1,40,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand Five
Hundred only).
7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Court of II
Additional District Judge, Tumakuru in
Civil Misc.No.79/2014 is modified. The claimant is entitled
for compensation of Rs.1,40,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty
Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at the rate of
8% per annum from the date of the petition till full
payment of compensation amount.
It is needless to observe that the petitioners to
deposit the amount within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN/VMB
