Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs K Basamma on 14 September, 2022

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

     WRIT PETITION No.14236 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
       MAJOR, WORKS DIVISION,
       KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
       TUMAKURU TOWN,
       TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

2.     THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
       MAJOR, WORKS DIVISION,
       KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
       TUMAKURU TOWN,
       TUMAKURU DISTRICT.            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D.ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

K.BASAMMA,
D/O RAMAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O DABBEGHATTA,
SHETTIKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214.           ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PATEL D.KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
                                    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

Sri.Aswathappa.D., learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri.Patel D.Karegowda., learned counsel for

respondent have appeared in person.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil

Misc.No.10015/2016 before the V Additional 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.87/5A situated at

Mallagondanahalli Village, Shettikere Hobli, C.N.Halli

Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL has drawn 220/110

KV Electric Transmission Line from K.B. Cross to

Timmanahalli which passes the 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 K.V Electric Transmission Line 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.Basamma was examined as PW1

and produced 6 documents which were marked as

Ex.P.1 to P6. One Sri.Hanumantharayappa., was

examined as RW1 and no documents were produced.

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

dated:10.07.2019 awarded compensation of Rs.62,855/-

(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty

Five only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum

from the date of filing 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. Sri.D.Ashwathappa., 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, he 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, he 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, he submitted that award of compensation

requires modification and therefore, submitted that the

Writ Petition may be allowed.

Sri.Patel D.Karegowda., learned counsel for

respondent justified the award passed by the Trial

Court. It is submitted that the Trial court in extenso

referred to the material on record and passed the award

and the same does not require any interference by this

Court. Accordingly, he submitted that the Writ Petition

may be dismissed.

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?

Sri.D.Aswathappa., 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 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             YIELD                COST
                  TREES



125 X 10 X 10 = 12,500

12,500 * 30% = 3,750

12,500 - 3,750 = 8,750/-

8,750 * 13 = 1,13,750/-


        Taking    into   consideration      of    the   same,   the

Claimant     is    entitled   for   total        compensation    of

Rs.1,13,750/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirteen Thousand

Seven Hundred and Fifty only).

Counsel for petitioner submits that the Authorities

have paid Rs.99,645/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand

Six Hundred and Forty Five only) at the time of drawing

up of the line.

Submission is noted. Therefore, the claimant is

entitled for balance compensation of Rs.14,105/-

(Rupees Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Five only)

with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.

The order dated:10.07.2019 passed by the Court of V