Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer Ele vs Smt Rangamma on 9 March, 2022
Bench: Dr.H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION NO. 5332 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU CITY,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 102.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
NO.4, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
K.P.T.C.L, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU CITY,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 102.
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RANGAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 227.
..RESPONDENT
W.P. No. 5332/2022
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-C, DATED 25/05/2021 PASSED IN
CIVIL MISC. NO.158/2013 ON THE FILE OF 5TH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TIPTUR
BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present respondent as a claimant in Civil
Misc.No.158/2013 on the file of the V Additional
District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur (hereinafter for
brevity referred to as 'trial Court') filed under Section
19 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 13 of
Indian Telegraphic Act, had claimed compensation
with interest thereupon on the ground that the
present petitioners had drawn 110/11 KV electricity
W.P. No. 5332/2022
transmission line in her agricultural land bearing
Survey No.196 measuring 4 acres and Survey No.207
measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Soolekere
village, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur
District.
She also contended that the petitioners herein
had used the land of 22 meters width and have cut
and removed 49 Coconut trees aged about 13 years,
03 Tamarind trees aged about 20 years, 19 Neem
trees aged about 25 years, 1 Arali tree aged about 25
years, 03 Honge trees aged about 25 years, 01 Hippe
tree aged about 20 years, 39 Bamboo aged about 20
years and 02 Kaggali trees aged about 20 years.
Despite the same, she was awarded with the
compensation of a sum of `2,29,691/- by the present
petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, she had sought
for enhancement of the said compensation.
W.P. No. 5332/2022
2. The trial Court after hearing both the side
and recording the evidence before it, awarded the
compensation in the following manner:
1. For 49 coconut trees `6,12,500/-
2. For 9 Neem trees of 18 years old `40,500/-
3. For 10 Neem trees of 8 years old `20,000/-
4. For 3 Honge trees `7,500/-
5. For 39 Bamboo Sele `19,500/-
Total `7,00,000/-
`7,00
After deducting the amount of `2,12,388/- which
was said to have already been granted, the trial Court
held that the petitioner before it was entitled for
enhanced compensation of a sum of `4,87,612/- with
interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
filing of petition till the date of recovery. Challenging
the same, the respondents in the trial Court have filed
the present Writ Petition.
W.P. No. 5332/2022
3. The only contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners herein is that while calculating the
compensation towards fruit bearing trees, which is a
coconut tree in the instant case, the trial Court
ought to have deducted 30% towards the cost of
cultivation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that by virtue of the judgment reported in
The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and
another V/s Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 KAR
677, 30% has to be deducted towards the cost of
cultivation, while calculating compensation towards
coconut trees. Since the trial Court has not deducted
the said cost of cultivation, the petitioners are before
this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners
concedes that with respect to the quantum of
compensation awarded to the other trees, he has no
grievance.
W.P. No. 5332/2022
4. Though the matter has come up before this
Court as a fresh matter to consider the interim prayer,
however, the Court thought that the petition
itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, the submission
of the learned counsel of the petitioners was
heard extensively, where he reiterated the above
points.
In Doddakka's case (supra) at Paragraph
No.26, the Hon'ble Apex Court though has observed
that the cost of cultivation in respect of fruit bearing
trees will be 30%, however in the very same
judgment at Paragraph No.27, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has taken a total value of `5/- per coconut [for the
relevant year in the said case], after giving margin to
the cost incurred for cultivation and other expenses
without actually making any arithmetical calculation
regarding the yield, price of each coconut and the
30% cost of cultivation.
W.P. No. 5332/2022
5. Even in the case on hand also, the trial
Court while calculating the compensation, towards the
coconut tree, though it has taken the price of each of
the coconut at `10/-, by giving reasons as to why it is
taking such price, has also shown that the said arrival
of the price is after giving margin of the cost incurred
for cultivation. The trial Court though has not
arithmetically calculated the price of the coconut prior
to deduction towards the cost of cultivation, however
before arriving to the price at `10/- per coconut, it has
given margin to the cost incurred for cultivation.
Therefore, the only contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the trial Court has not
considered the cost of cultivation in calculating the
price of the coconut and arrived at higher
compensation is not accepted. Except this,
since the petitioners have no other grievance, I am of
W.P. No. 5332/2022
the view that, even without ordering the notice
to the respondent, the present petition can be
disposed of.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed, as
devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
mbb
