Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer ... vs Sri K H Ramaiah on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No.12477 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELETRICAL),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL,
KOTHI THOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELETRICAL),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION IV, KPTCL,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMKURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI K.H.RAMAIAH
S/O YAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O KANTALAGERE,
SHETTIKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMKUR - 572 226. ... RESPONDENT
(SERVED)
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.Shubha.S., learned counsel for petitioners has
appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the status of
parties is referred to as per their rankings before the
Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil
Misc.No.10025/2015 before the V Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Tiptur and sought for enhanced
compensation.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the
land bearing Survey No.20/4 and 20/11 situated at
Kantalagere Village, Shettikere Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk.
The KPTCL has drawn 220/110 KV Electricity
Transmission Line and the same passed through
petitioner's land. It is said that they have cut and
removed fruit bearing trees and crops.
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.
It is also stated that since there is a drawing up of
Electric Transmission Line over the land, there is
diminution of value of the land and hence, he prayed for
enhancement of compensation with interest.
After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed
statement of objections. They admitted that they have
drawn 220/110 KV Electric Transmission Line and it
passes through the petitioner's land. The compensation
awarded 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 K.H.Ramaiah was examined as PW1
and produced 10 documents which were marked as
Ex.P.1 to P10. On behalf of respondents, one
Mr.Hanumantharayappa., was examined as RW1 and no
documents were produced.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order
dated:13.11.2018 awarded compensation of Rs.97,974/-
(Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and
Seventy Four only) with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of drawing electricity high-tension
wire till the date of recovery.
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
the Trial Court 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.
Next, she submitted that the aspect regarding cost
of cultivation has not been properly considered by the
Trial Court.
It is further submitted that this Court in various
judgments held that the cost of cultivation 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 have already paid the
compensation and the petitioner has received the same
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
parties and perused the Annexure with care.
6. The short question which arises for
consideration is whether the compensation awarded by
the Trial Court requires modification?
Smt.Shubha.S., learned counsel while presenting
his argument has drawn 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. The award of amount in respect of Coconut
Trees and Neem Trees requires modification. In view of
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, the
calculation will be as under:
CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:
SL.NO. NO.OF TREES YIELD PRICE
150 X 10 X 10 = 15,000
15,000 * 30% = 15000 X 30/100 = 4,500
15,000 - 4,500 = 10,500 * 9 = 94,500/-
CALCULATION OF NEEM TREES:
There are 2 Neem trees. The Trial court has taken
Rs.15,000/- per Neem tree. The same requires to be
modified as Rs.13,000/-.
Hence, 13,000 X 2 = Rs.26,000/-.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
Cocount Tree - Rs.94,500
Neem Tree - Rs.26,000
Total - Rs.1,20,500
Taking into consideration of the same, the
claimant is entitled for Total compensation of
Rs.1,20,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Five
Hundred only).
Smt.Shubha., learned counsel submits that the
Authority has paid a sum of. Rs.76,926/- (Rupees
Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Six
only) at the time of drawing of the line and by virtue of
interim order a sum of Rs.60,000/- is also deposited on
14.12.2021.
Submission is noted. Therefore, the claimant will
be entitled for balance compensation of Rs.43,574/-
(Rupees Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred and
Seventy Four only) with 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The Order dated:13.11.2018 passed by the Court of V
Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil
Misc.No.10025/2015 is modified. The claimant is entitled
for balance compensation of Rs.43,574/- (Rupees Forty
Three Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Four only).
The same is to be paid to the claimant with interest at
the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization.
It is needless to observe that the KPTCL Authority
shall deposit the balance amount within six weeks from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
The Trial court is directed to calculate the same
and pay the balance amount to the claimant. If there is
any excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the
Authorities.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
