Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer ... vs Sri Kempahanumaiah 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.45868 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
       MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL,
       KOTHI THOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT.

2.     THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
       ENGINEER (ELETRICAL),
       MAJOR WORKS DIVISION IV, KPTCL,
       KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN,
       TUMKUR DISTRICT.              ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.SHUBHA.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI KEMPAHANUMAIAH
S/O HANUMAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
BY HIS LRs.

1(a) SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
     W/O LATE MEPAHANUMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

1(b) SRI H.K.RENUKAIAH
     S/O LATE KEMPAHANUMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
                               2




1(c) SRI H.K.DHANANJAYA
     S/O LATE KEMPAHANUMAIAH.

1(d) SMT.H.K.CHAITHRA
     D/O LATE KEMPAHANUMAIAH.

ALL ARE R/AT HATNA VILLAGE,
KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TQ,
TUMAKURU DIST,
TUMKUR - 572 114
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(R1(a) TO (d) ARE SERVED)


      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.10027/2015 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.170/2B situated at Hatna

Village, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk. The KPTCL has

drawn 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 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 - Kempahanumaiah was examined

as PW1 and produced 7 documents which were marked

as Ex.P.1 to P7. On behalf of respondents, one

Mr.Lokesh., was examined as RW1 and he has not

produced any documentary evidence.

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order

dated:30.11.2018 awarded compensation of

Rs.2,03,932/- (Rupees Two Lakh Three Thousand Nine

Hundred and Thirty Two only) with interest at the rate of

8% per annum from the date of petition 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 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
    1            7                   150        10


150 X 10 X 10 = 15,000
15,000 * 30% = 15000 X 30/100 = 4,500

15,000 - 4,500 = 10,500 * 7 = 73,500/-

CALCULATION OF NEEM TREES:

Trial court has taken Rs.15,000/- per Neem tree.

The same requires to be modified as Rs.13,000/-.

There are 8 Neem trees.

13,000 X 8 = Rs.1,04,000/-.

CALCULATION OF JAALI TREES

Trial Court has taken Rs.4,000/- per Jaali Tree.

The same requires to be modified as Rs.2,000/-.

There are 8 Jaali Trees.

2000 X 8 = 16,000/-.

Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:

Cocount Tree        - Rs.73,500

Neem Tree           - Rs.1,04,000

Jali Tree           - Rs.     16,000

Total               - Rs.1,93,500


        Taking    into   consideration         of    the   same,   the

claimant     is    entitled    for     total        compensation    of

Rs.1,93,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand

and Five Hundred only).

Smt.Shubha., learned counsel submits that the

Authority has paid a sum of Rs.60,768/- (Rupees Sixty

Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Eight only) at the

time of drawing of the line.

Counsel further submits that by virtue of interim

order a sum of Rs.1,22,359/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty

Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine only) has

been deposited before the Trial Court.

In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.

The Order dated:30.11.2018 passed by the Court of V