Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Sri Ranganath L K on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No.5528 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KPTCL, BRUHATH KAMAGARI DIVISION,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZP OFFICE,
TUMAKURU - 572 101.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KPTCL, BRUHATH KAMAGARI DIVISION,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZP OFFICE,
TUMAKURU - 572 101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RANGANATH L.K.,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. ... 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.Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for petitioners
has appeared through video conferencing.
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
Mis.155/2013 before the I Additional District and Session
Judge, Tumakur and sought for enhanced compensation
with 12% interest.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the
land bearing Survey No.140 situated at Lakkenahalli
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk. 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 12% 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 - Ranganath.L.K., got examined one
witness Puttaveera Badregowda as PW-1 and produced 08
documents which were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-8. One
Sri.Maruthi, was examined as RW-1 and he produced two
documents which was marked as Ex.R-1 and R-2.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order
dated 06.02.2016 awarded compensation of Rs.26,17,250/-
(Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty only) less the compensation already
paid by the respondents. Interest of 8% per annum was
also granted 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.Rakshitha D.J., 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 Annexures with care.
6. The short question which arises for
consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the
Trial Court requires modification?
Smt.Rakshitha D.J., 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. 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 MANGO TREES:
SL.NO. NO.OF TREES YIELD PRICE
1 57 150 kg 30/-
• 150 X 30 X 10 = 45,000/-
• 45,000 X 30% = 13,500/-
• 45,000 - 13,500/- = 31,500/- per tree
• 31,500 X 57 = Rs.17,95,500/- (for 57 Mango trees).
The compensation awarded for other trees is
unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed modified compensation
amount will be as under:
Mango trees - Rs. 17,95,500/-
Teak trees - Rs. 30,000/-
Banyan Trees - Rs. 25,000/-
Neem Trees - Rs. 18,000/-
Jali Trees - Rs. 16,000/-
Nerale Trees - Rs. 15,000/-
Jali Trees - Rs. 15,000/-
Eucalyptus Trees - Rs. 250/-
Total Compensation = Rs.19,14,750/-
Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.19,14,750/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Forteen Thousand
Seven Hundred and Fifty only).
Learned counsel Smt.Rakshitha.D.J., submits that
the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.6,84,209/-
(Rupees Six Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred and
Nine) while drawing up of the line. Learned counsel also
submits that by virtue of the interim order 50% of the
awarded amount has been deposited before the Trial
Court.
Submission is noted. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.12,30,541/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Thousand Five
Hundred and Forty One only) is to be paid to the claimant
with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till
realization.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
order dated:06.02.2016 passed by the Court of
I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in
Misc.No.155/2013 is modified.
The claimant is entitled for balance compensation of
Rs.12,30,541/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Thousand Five
Hundred and Forty One only) 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 look into the deposit
made by the Authority and 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
