Karnataka High Court
The Chief Engineer vs Sri L S Shivaramaiah on 6 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
WP No. 10651 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10651 OF 2017 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
THE TRANSMISSION ZONE,
400 KV STATION AND LINE,
CONSTRUCTION DIVISION,
(NELAMANGALA HUDI)
KPTCL (BESCOM),
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
THE TRANSMISSION ZONE,
400 KV STATION AND LINE, CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION, (NELAMANGALA TO HUDI)
KPTCL (BESCOM), ANADA RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE NORTH MAJOR DIVISION,
2ND FLOOR, BANGALORE.
Digitally
signed by 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KIRAN
KUMAR R THE TRANSMISSION ZONE,
Location: 400 KV STATION AND LINE,
HIGH
COURT OF CONSTRUCTION DIVISION,
KARNATAKA
(NELAMANGALA TO HUDI)
KPTCL (BESCOM), ANADA RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI L S SHIVARAMAIAH
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
WP No. 10651 of 2017
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA,
SOREKUNTE POST, BELLAVIHUBLI,
TUMAKUR TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY HIS S.P.A HOLDER
D.BASAVARAJU, S/O DODDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA,
SOREKUNTE POST, BELLAVI HUBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. A V GANGADARAPPA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED.30.1.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN
MISC. PETITION NO.114/2006, PASSED BY HON'BLE I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. A petition was presented under Section 19 of the
Electricity Act, 1910 by the respondent contending that he
was entitled to compensation of Rs.8,20,000/- with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum for 82 mango trees
which were cut and removed for the purpose of installing
overhead electric transmission line of 400 KV from
Nelamangala to Hoodi.
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
2. It was the specific case of the respondent that he
had not been issued with any notice of award and he had
not been paid any compensation for the trees which were
cut and removed. It is also his case that he had issued a
legal notice to the petitioners on 05.04.2006 and though
the notice was received by the KEB, they had neither
replied to the notice, nor complied with the demand to pay
compensation to the respondent. The respondent therefore
contended that he was entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.500/- per annum for each mango tree and thus,
he was entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,20,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The petitioners entered appearance and admitted the
fact that the trees were cut and removed. In fact, they
categorically admitted that they had cut and removed 80
mango trees. Interestingly, the petitioners also put forth
the contention that they had paid the compensation for
the loss and damage caused to the respondent by
removing the trees, but went on to deny the assertion that
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
the respondent would not be entitled for compensation at
the rate of Rs.500/- for each mango tree.
4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the assertions
made by the petitioners and the respondent, came to the
conclusion that the fact that the 82 mango trees were cut
and removed was not in dispute. It has also held that
though the petitioners contended that the compensation
for these 80 mango trees were paid, no material was,
produced before the Court to establish that compensation
has been paid and the Trial Court therefore took the view
that the respondent was required to be paid
compensation.
5. The Trial Court thereafter proceeded to assess the
compensation and concluded that each mango tree would
normally be expected to yield about 50 kilograms of
mangoes each year and by assuming that each kilogram
would fetch a sum of Rs.9/-, it would be appropriate to
consider that each of the tree would fetch income of
Rs.450/- and out of which, if cost of cultivation of Rs.50/-
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
was to be deducted, the net income would therefore be
Rs.400/- per tree. The Trial Court thus applied the
multiplier of 10 and proceeded to hold that the respondent
would be entitled for a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- as
compensation, and, accordingly, directed that said amount
be paid with interest at 8% per annum.
6. As against said order, the present petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously
contended that the trees were cut in the year 1996 and
the claim for compensation was made in the year 2006,
which was obviously a stale and a time barred claim. He
contended that in respect of trees which were cut and
removed in the year 1996, it was incumbent upon the
respondent to make a claim within a period of 3 years. He
submitted that since there was no specific provision in the
Limitation Act, the residuary Article i.e., Article 137 of the
Limitation Act would come into operation and the claim
would have to be made within a period of 3 years from the
date on which the trees were cut.
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Kunhaliumma1 and submitted that though the decision
rendered by the Apex Court was in relation to a case in
which notice of the compensation fixed was considered,
the fact remains that the law does not require any notice
to be issued and therefore, the starting point of limitation
would be the date on which the trees were cut i.e., in the
year 1996.
9. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act empowers the
Telegraph Authority to place and maintain telegraph lines.
Exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the
said Act, if the authority commits damage to a property, it
is obliged to pay full compensation to all persons
interested for the damage sustained by them by reason of
the exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 of the
Indian Telegraph Act. The law therefore mandates that
whenever damage was caused by the Telegraph Authority,
The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P.Kunhaliumma - (1976) 4 SCC
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
which, in the instant case, would be the petitioner - Board,
they are obligated to pay full compensation.
10. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act enables the
person who is entitled to receive compensation, if he were
to raise a dispute, to seek reference to a District Judge for
adjudication of his claim.
11. A conjoint reading of Sections 10 and 16 of Indian
Telegraph Act would indicate that the entitlement of a
person to claim compensation for damage sustained by
exercise of powers under Section 10 of the said Act would
essentially arise only on the compensation not being paid.
Admittedly, in the instant case, though the petitioner -
Board contended that compensation had been paid, no
material was produced before the Trial Court to indicate
the date or the amount of compensation being paid for the
admitted damage caused i.e., for removal of 82 mango
trees. If the person who had sustained damage is not paid
any compensation at all, the question of applying Article
137 of the Limitation Act would not arise.
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
12. The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court
referred to above would be of no consequence since in
that particular case, a notice fixing the compensation had
been issued and the claim was made beyond 3 years from
that particular date. In the instant case, as already
observed above, since the compensation itself was never
paid, the question of starting point of limitation occurring
from the date of paying the compensation or date of the
compensation being fixed would not arise. The arguments
of the petitioners that the entitlement to claim
compensation would accrue from the date on which the
damage was caused cannot be accepted in the light of the
provisions under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act
which imposes an obligation on the authority to pay full
compensation for the damage sustained by a person.
13. As already observed above, since in the instant case,
the authority failed to establish or produce any material to
indicate that compensation was paid for the damage
caused, the argument of the petitioners that the
NC: 2024:KHC:19704
entitlement of the claimant to claim compensation would
accrue from the date of removal of trees cannot be
accepted. The Trial Court was therefore justified in coming
to the conclusion that the plea of limitation cannot be put
forth by the petitioners.
14. As far as compensation determined at the rate of
Rs.400/- per tree, the determination of compensation by
the Trial Court cannot be found fault with since it has
adopted a pragmatic approach and has correctly applied
the multiplier of 10. I am thus of the view that there is no
justification to entertain this writ petition and the petition
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS
