The Executive Engineer vs Jayanna
2022 Latest Caselaw 3482 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                              BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

     WRIT PETITION No.46998 OF 2014 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1.     The Executive Engineer,
       KPTCL, Major Works Division,
       Chitradurga - 577501.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer,
       Major Works Sub-Division,
       Chitradurga 578501.

3.     The Managing Director,
       KPTCL, Kaveri Bhavan,
       Bangalore.
                                       ..   Petitioners

(By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Jayanna,
       S/o. Hattappa,
       Aged about 32 years,
       Occ: Agriculture,
       R/o. Gollanakatte village,
       Kasaba Hobli,
       Chitradurga Taluk
       and District 577501.

2.     Sannaeramma,
       W/o. Hattappa,
       Aged about 63 years,
                                                    W.P.No.46998/2014
                                     2


        Occ: Agriculture,
        R/o. Gollanakatte village,
        Kasaba Hobli,
        Chitradurga Taluk
        and District 577501.
                                                     .. Respondents

(By Sri. R. Shashidhara, Advocate for R-1 & R-2)

                                   ****
        This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing the order dated 15-02-2014 passed in Misc.309/2011
(Annexure A) of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Chitradurga and pass any other order as this Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order
as to costs in the interest of justice and equity.


        This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing, through Physical
Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing, this day, the Court made
the following:


                             ORDER

The petitioners in the present writ petition have

challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chitradurga (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the

District Court") in Misc.No.309/2011 vide its judgment

dated 15-02-2014.

W.P.No.46998/2014

2. The admitted fact remains that the present

petitioners have erected electricity supply tower and drawn

high tension electricity supply lines in the agricultural land

bearing R.S.78/1p2 belonging to the respondents herein

and situated in J.N. Kote Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga

Taluk and Chitradurga District. Out of the total extent of 27

acres 13 guntas in the said survey number, an extent of

131.06 guntas is said to have been used for the said

purpose. The District Court, based upon the Miscellaneous

case filed by the present respondents under Section 16 (3)

of Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as "the Act") has awarded a total compensation

of a sum of `3,33,650/- with interest at `6% per annum from

the date of petition till payment, payable by the petitioners

herein (respondents therein) to the respondents herein

(petitioners therein). Challenging the same, the petitioners

have come up through this writ petition.

3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel

for the petitioners is that, the District Court, taking the W.P.No.46998/2014

market value of the land at `2,00,000/- per acre was

exorbitant and was without any basis and also taking the

diminution value at 50% was also less and it also ought to

have been 30% by virtue of the judgment of the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive

Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and another Vs. Doddakka

reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677:2014 (6) Kar.L.J.185.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents herein

(petitioners therein) submitted that, Ex.P-2 which is the

RTC extract for the relevant year shows that, the

claimants/respondents herein were growing arecanut, as

such, as per Ex.P-3, the market value of the land per acre

ought to have been taken at `3,00,000/- per acre.

However, the District Court has not considered the same.

He further submitted that the compensation awarded in

respect of installation of the Tower is only a sum of

`6,000/- which is a small amount. He also submits that the

rate of interest awarded at the rate of `6% per annum is

also very less which requires reconsideration.

W.P.No.46998/2014

5. In her reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners

herein submitted that, the respondents/claimants, without

challenging the impugned judgment cannot seek for

enhancement of the compensation, that too, without any

grounds or basis for seeking such an enhancement.

6. With respect to the alleged fixation of market value

is concerned, the District Court has taken the market value

at `2,00,000/- per acre. According to respondents/

claimants, they were growing Arecanut, as such, the market

value ought to have been taken at `3,00,000/- per acre.

Though the respondent No.1 (claimant No.1), who got

himself examined as PW-1, in his examination-in-chief has

stated that, his land was very fertile, red soil and had

market value at `10,00,000/- per acre, but himself has

produced the Market Valuation Certificate and got it marked

at Ex.P-3, wherein the market value is shown as between a

sum of `90,000/- to a sum of `3,00,000/- per acre, depending

upon the nature of the soil and the crop grown. While for dry W.P.No.46998/2014

land, it is fixed at `90,000/- per acre, for garden land, it is

fixed at `2,00,000/- per acre. If the said garden land is

being cultivated with Arecanut, then, the market value is

fixed at `3,00,000/- per acre. To show the type of crops

the claimants were growing including Arecanut, they have

produced copies of the RTC extracts which are at Exs.P-1

and P-2.

7. A perusal of the RTC extracts (Exs.P-1 & P-2)

would go to show that, at the relevant point of time, the

respondents herein (claimants) were growing plantain,

ground nut and Arecanut. However, the learned District

Court, without there being any basis, treating the land in

question as dry land, has arrived at a market value at

`2,00,000/- per acre. As such, the market value per acre

was required to be taken at `3,00,000/- (`7,500/- per

gunta).

8. In so far as the calculation of the compensation is

concerned, the District Court has taken 50% of the total

market value as diminution. No doubt, though earlier some W.P.No.46998/2014

of the Courts were taking 50% as the diminution value,

however in Doddakka's case (supra), it has been held that

the said diminution value has to be taken at 30%. Since

the said value of diminution is being uniformly applied in all

the matters, the diminution value is now required to be

taken even in the instant case also at 30% and the

compensation is to be calculated accordingly.

Thus, at the rate of `3,00,000/- per acre, per gunta,

the market value would be at `7,500/-. For 131.06 guntas,

the diminution value would be `7,500X131.06 guntas X

30% = `2,94,885/-.

9. Admittedly, a single tower has been installed in the

land of the respondents/claimants. Towards one tower

installation, the compensation of `6,000/- is awarded.

Though the learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that for single tower installation, the compensation is

required to be `1,00,000/-, but the said submission bears

no support either by oral and documentary evidence. A

uniform compensation is awarded for the relevant period of W.P.No.46998/2014

time for the said utilisation of the land for drawing of

electricity supply lines at `6,000/- for single tower.

Therefore, I do not find any discrepancy in the quantum of

compensation awarded towards the installation of the

tower.

10. Thus, when calculated, the total compensation for

which the respondents/claimants would be entitled would

come as follows:

(i) 131.06x7,500/-x30% = `2,94,885/-

(ii) Towards Tower installation = 6,000/-

Total = `3,00,885/-

11. The interest at the rate of `6% awarded by the

District Court also being reasonable, does not warrant any

interference at the hands of this Court.

12. Considering the circumstances of the case and

also the evidence led by PW-1, I do not find that the

claimants are entitled for any other enhancement, on the

other hand, the petitioners could able to show that, the W.P.No.46998/2014

diminution of valuation calculated by the District Court was

slightly on the higher side.

Accordingly, since the total compensation awarded by

the District Court in the impugned judgment is slightly on

the higher side, the same warrants interference by this

Court and to that extent only, the writ petition requires to

be allowed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.

The judgment dated 15-02-2014 passed in Misc. No.

309/2011 (Annexure-A) by the Court of the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is

modified to the extent that the entitlement of the

respondents/claimants for compensation is reduced from

`3,33,650/- to `3,00,885/-.

`

The rest of the order including awarding of interest at

the rate of `6% per annum from the date of petition till

payment remains unaltered.

Draw modified Award accordingly.

W.P.No.46998/2014

Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the

concerned District Court, without delay.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BMV*