The Executive Engineer vs Sri. Vidyasagar
2022 Latest Caselaw 11928 Kant

                          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.10878 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       KPTCL, BRUHATH KAMAGARI DIVISION,
       KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZP OFFICE,
       TUMKURU - 572 101.

2.     ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
       KPTCL, BRUHATH KAMAGARI DIVISION,
       KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZP OFFICE,
       TUMKURU - 572 101.            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT.RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI VIDYASAGAR,
S/O LATE GURSUSIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT BOMMENAHALLY,
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 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

Mis.154/2014 before the I Additional District and

Session Judge, Tumakur and sought for enhanced

compensation with 15% interest.

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the

land bearing Survey No.21/1P situated at Bommenahalli

Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakur 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 - Vidyasagar was examined as PW-1

and produced 09 documents which were marked as

Exs.P-1 to P-9. One Sri.N.K.Shivanagendra, 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 06.02.2016 awarded compensation of

Rs.3,52,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Two Thousand

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 ARECANUT TREES:

SL.NO.       NO. OF TREES          YIELD          PRICE
                                                  (Rs.)
   1.               68              2 KG          135/-





• 135 X 2 X 10 = 2,700/-

• 2,700 X 30% = 810/-

• 2,700 - 810 = 1,890/- per tree

• 1,890 X 68 = Rs.1,28,520/- (for 68 Arecanut trees)

CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:

SL.NO. NO.OF TREES YIELD PRICE 1 13 150 10/-

• 150 X 10 X 10 = 15,000/-

• 15,000 X 30% = 4,500/-

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

• 10,500 X 13 = Rs.1,36,500/- (for 13 Coconut trees).

Hence, the re-assessed modified compensation

amount will be as under:

Arecanut trees        - Rs. 1,28,520/-

Coconut trees         - Rs. 1,36,500/-

Total compensation    =Rs. 2,65,020/-

Taking into consideration the above calculation,

the claimant is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.2,65,020/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Five Thousand

and Twenty only).

Learned counsel Smt.Rakshitha.D.J., submits that

the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.2,38,924/-

(Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred

and Twenty Four only) while drawing up of the line.

Learned counsel also submits that by virtue of interim

order 50% of the awarded amount has been deposited

before the Trial Court.

Submission is noted. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.26,096/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand and Ninety

Six 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.154/2014 is modified.

The claimant is entitled for balance compensation

of Rs.26,096/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand and Ninety

Six 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