Karnataka High Court
The Asst.Executive Engineer vs Sri Jagadish on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION No.22967 OF 2015 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Bruhat Kamagari Vibhaga (KPTCL)
Chitradurga.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Bruhat Kamagari Vibhaga (KPTCL),
Chitradurga.
.. Petitioners
(By Smt. M.C. Nagashree, Advocate)
AND:
Sri. Jagadish
S/o. Hanumantharaya
Aged about 45 years,
Agriculturist,
R/at Sajjanakere,
Chitradurga Taluk,
Chitradurga District - 577 501.
.. Respondent
(By Sri. R. Shashidhara, Advocate)
****
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 of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Misc.No.295/2011 dated
W.P.No.22967/2015
2
22-01-2014, as per Annexure C; 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.295/2011 vide its judgment
dated 22-01-2014.
2. The petitioners - Karnataka Power Transmission
Company Limited (KPTCL) have drawn the transmission
lines of 400 K.V., which ultimately has passed through the
land of the present respondent situate at R.S.No.264,
Sajjanakere village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk,
Chitradurga District. Though the total extent of the land of
the respondent is said to be 06 acres 02 guntas, however, it
W.P.No.22967/2015
is not in dispute that the utilisation of the land by the KPTCL
for the purpose of drawing high tension circuit lines was
only to an extent of 61.68 guntas, including the corridor
land both left and right side from the center point of the
towers/poles.
3. The respondent was paid a sum of `5,081/-
towards compensation for diminution value and causing
other damages. Seeking enhancement of the same, the
present respondent had instituted a petition in
Misc.No.295/2011, in the District Court, under Section
16(3) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 (hereinafter for
brevity referred to as "the Act"), which Court, after hearing
both side, recording the evidence led before it, by its
impugned judgment dated 22-01-2014, allowed the petition
in part and held that the petitioner before it (respondent
herein) was entitled for compensation of a sum of
`1,31,070/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till payment. Challenging the same, the
W.P.No.22967/2015
respondents therein (petitioners herein) have come up
through this writ petition.
4. The argument advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that, the diminution value at 50%
taken by the District Court was less and it 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. However, she
submitted that, even though the petitioners have also
taken a contention regarding the fixation of market value
also, but in the circumstance of the case, she would not
press on the said point.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent herein
(petitioner therein) in his argument submitted that, it is not
in dispute that the diminution value is to be taken at 30%
only, but however contends that the market value assessed
by the District Court taking it at `1,70,000/- per acre, does
W.P.No.22967/2015
not warrant any interference. Before concluding his
submission, he submits that though the compensation
towards erection of a single Tower in the land has not been
granted, but still, he would not press on the said point.
6. It is not in dispute that the total extent of land
utilised for drawing up of High Tension circuit electricity
lines including corridor land is, 61.68 guntas belonging to
the respondent herein. According to the respondent who
was examined as PW-1 in the Trial Court, his land had
water facility and a bore-well in his land, in which regard,
he has produced the Certificate issued by the Village
Accountant at Ex.P-3. The document marked by him at
Ex.P-2 in the District Court which is the Market Valuation
Certificate issued by the competent Sub-Registrar, gives the
market value of the different varieties of land. The District
Court has taken the market value of the land in question at
`1,70,000/- per acre. Since the said market value has not
been seriously agitated, no disturbance in the said market
value is now being made.
W.P.No.22967/2015
7. However, the District Court has taken 50% of the
total market value as diminution. No doubt, though earlier
some 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.
8. Thus, at the rate of `4,250/- per gunta, for 61.68
guntas, the diminution value would be `4,250/-X 61.68
guntas X 30% = `78,642/-.
9. The interest at the rate of `6% per annum awarded
by the District Court being reasonable, does not warrant
any interference at the hands of this Court.
10. Since the respondent is also not claiming
compensation under any other heads and circumstance also
does not warrant, I do not find that the respondent is
entitled for compensation under any other heads, on the
W.P.No.22967/2015
other hand, the petitioners could able to show that, the
diminution of valuation calculated by the District Court was
slightly on the higher side.
11. 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 22-01-2014 passed in Misc. No.
295/2011 (Annexure-C) by the Court of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is
modified to the extent that the entitlement of the
respondent/claimant for compensation is reduced from
`1,31,070/- to `78,642/-.
`
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.
W.P.No.22967/2015
Draw modified Award accordingly.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the
concerned District Court, without delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
