Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer ... vs Sri Lokesh on 15 September, 2022

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

     WRIT PETITION No.11394 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

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

2.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
       MAJOR WORKS DIVISION IV,
       KPTCL, KOTHI THOPU ROAD,
       TUMAKURU TOWN,
       TUMAKURU DIST.                ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI LOKESH,
S/O TIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O KATRIKEHALLI,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYANAKANAHALLI TQ,
TUMAKURU DIST.
TUMKUR - 572 228.                    ... 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

Smt.Shubha.S., learned counsel for petitioners 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.10021/2015 before the V Additional District and

Session Judge, Tiptur and sought for enhanced

compensation.

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the

land bearing Survey No.131/P2 situated at Katrikehal

Village, Kandikere Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru

District. The KPTCL has drawn 110/11 KV Electric

Transmission Line 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

High-Tension Electric Line over the land, there is

diminution of value of the land and hence, he prayed for

enhancement of compensation with interest at 15% per

annum.

After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed

statement of objections. They admitted that they have

drawn 110/11 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 - Lokesh was examined as PW-1 and

produced 07 documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to

P-7. One Sri.Hanumanthrayappa, was examined as RW-1

and he produced one document which was marked as

Ex.R-1.

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

dated 29.11.2018 awarded compensation of Rs.7,55,832/-

(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred

and Thirty Two only) with interest of 8% per annum from

the date of petition till realization.

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.

Sri.Patel D.Karegowda., learned counsel for

respondent justified the order of the Trial Court. Learned

counsel vehemently submitted that the learned judge in

extenso referred to the material on record and awarded

the compensation. Hence , the order does not require any

interference and hence the writ petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the

parties and perused the Annexures with care.

6. The short question which arises for

consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the

Trial Court requires modification?

Smt.Subha.S., learned Counsel in presenting her

argument, has drawn the attention of 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

Arecanut 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.

The calculation will be as under:

CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:

 SL.NO.       NO.OF TREES            YIELD               PRICE
    1                25               150                10/-





•   150X10 X 10 = 15,000/-

• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 15,000X 30/100 = 4,500/-

• 15,000 - 4,500/- = 10,500/- per tree

• 10,500 * 25 = Rs.2,62,500 /- (for 25 coconut trees).

CALCULATION OF ARECANUT TREES:

SL.NO.        NO. OF TREES         YIELD         PRICE
                                                 (Rs.)
    1.                70            3KG          150/-


•   3X150X10= 4,500/-

• 30% COST OF CULTIVATION= 4,500 * 30/100= 1350/-

• 4,500 - 1,350 = 3,150/-

• 3,150 * 70 = 2,20,500/-

CALCULATION OF NEEM TREES:

There are 4 Neem trees. The Trial court has taken

Rs.15,000/- per tree. The same has to be modified as

Rs.13,000/- per tree.

Therefore, 13,000 X 4 = Rs.52,000/-

The compensation awarded for Tamarind and Honge

trees is unaltered.

Hence, the re-assessed modified compensation

amount will be as under:

Coconut trees             - Rs. 2,62,500/-

Areacanut trees           - Rs. 2,20,500/-

Neem trees                - Rs.       52,000/-

Tamrind trees             - Rs.       12,600/-

Honge trees               - Rs.        2,000/-

Total compensation        =Rs. 5,49,600/-

Taking into consideration the above calculation, the

claimant is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.5,49,600/- (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Nine Thousand and

Six Hundred only).

Learned counsel Smt.Shubha.S., submits that the

Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.1,62,268/- (Rupees

One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty

Eight only) while drawing up of the line. But in paragraph

40 of the order, it has been mentioned as Rs.62,268/-

however, the same has to be taken as Rs.1,62,268/-

(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Two Hundred and

Sixty Eight only). Learned counsel also submits a sum of