Karnataka High Court
Narayanappa vs Deputy Commissioner on 7 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
WP No. 17119 of 2021
C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 17119 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14116 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
IN W.P.No.17119/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYANAPPA
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O SANTHEPETE
SIRA TOWN-572137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
signed by
KIRAN TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KUMAR R TUMAKURU-572101.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. M/S KUDLIGI TRANSMISSION LTD
KARNATAKA
NO.38, CUBBON ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
BY ITS SECRETARY / MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
WP No. 17119 of 2021
C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN
MIS.NO.76/2016 DATED 5.4.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE
WRIT PETITION, ETC.
IN W.P.No.14116/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KUDGI TRANSMISSION LIMITED,
(ERRONEOUSLY DESCRIBED AS KUDLIGI
TRANSMISSION LTD., IN THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND IN THE LOWER COURT
RECORDS)
A PUBLIC COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.38,
CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 AND
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DULY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. OJES C.MADAPATTU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. S.NARAYANAPPA,
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/AT SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DECREE DATED
05.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
WP No. 17119 of 2021
C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CIVIL
MISCELLANEOUS No.76/2016 ANNEXURE-B, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The order assessing compensation under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 ("the Act") for laying power lines, is
the subject matter of these writ petitions.
2. The owner of the land has preferred W.P. No.17119
of 2021 being dissatisfied with the compensation, while
the Company i.e., the beneficiary is also before this Court
in W.P. No. 14116 of 2021 contending that the
compensation assessed is exorbitant.
3. The fact is that the land of the petitioner bearing
Sy.No.136/2 of Kotta village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk,
Tumkur district was utilized for executing the 765 kV D/C
(Hexa Zebra) Narendra (New) - Madhugiri Line.
4. It is also not in dispute that the Company issued a
notice dated 04.03.2016, as required under the Act, which
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
is also produced as Exhibit P-6 by the land-owner. This
notice indicates the particulars of crop/trees/plantation
damaged or cut in the following manner:
Crop
Area Damage/tree
Name of
affected in s/plantation
S.No Section Crop/plantation Type
sqmtr/ cut during
/trees
No of trees (FDN/EREC/
STRGG)
Borewell 1 250 x 2,500 6,25,000
Pomegranate 250 30 x 15,000 4,50,000
Cocunut (Small) 30 6 x 20,000 1,20,000
1 61/6-61/7
Cocunut 6 20 x 5,000 1,00,000
Corridor 20 guntas 1 x 7,000 7,000
Total Amount 13,02,000
5. As could be seen from said notice, the Company
admitted that it had cut 250 Pomegranate trees, 30 Small
coconut trees, 06 regular coconut trees and 01 neem tree
apart from utilizing 20 guntas of land for the corridor. This
notice also indicates the existence of a borewell.
6. In the notice, the Company assessed the
compensation payable in respect of Pomegranate trees at
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
Rs.2,500/-, for a small coconut tree at Rs.15,000/- and for
a regular coconut tree at Rs.20,000/-.
7. Being dissatisfied with the compensation determined,
the land-owner initiated proceedings seeking enhancement
of the compensation as provided under Section 16(3) of
the Act.
8. This claim was resisted by the Company. In the
objections filed by the Company, the Company while
admitting the fact that it had cut and removed the trees,
stated as follows as regards the compensation payable:
"10. It us further necessary to stating here
that the learned Deputy Commissioner of
Tumakuru held the joint meeting on the
representation of the formers and formers
union in respect to fixing of compensation.
In the said meeting, the learned Deputy
Commissioner, Tumakuru, with the consent
of the formers fixed the compensation
obtained the report from the Sub Registrar
in respect to the compensation for the land
department of Horticulture in respect to
compensation for the horticulture crops,
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
department of Agriculture in respect to
compensation for the agricultural crops and
department of forest in respect to
compensation for the forest trees. The copy
of the order passed by the learned Deputy
Commissioner of Tumakuru dated______ is
herewith produced as respondent document
No.______ for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court."
9. As could be seen from the above, the Company
admitted that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an
order determining the compensation payable to the trees
which were cut and removed for the purpose of execution
of the project.
10. The landowner, in support of his claim for
enhancement, placed reliance on the order of the Deputy
Commissioner dated 06.08.2015. It may be relevant to
reproduce the particular portion of the order which relates
to payment of compensation in respect of trees, and the
same reads as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
"5) ¥ÀªÀgï ¯ÉÊ£ï ¤ªÀiÁðtzÀ ºÁ¢AiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ J¯Áè
vÀgÀºÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁè¸ï-J ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹ F PɼÀPÁt¹zÀAvÉ
¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¹zÉ.
(1) MAzÀÄ vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 16,314/-
(2) MAzÀÄ CrPÉ ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 3,728/-
(3) MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ«£À ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 27,862/-
(4) MAzÀÄ ¥sÀ®ºÁgÀ ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 14,800/-
(5) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄgÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÀ zÀgÀzÀAvÉ
¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÀDUÀÆ eÉÆvÉUÉ ±ÉÃ.10 gÀµÀÄÖ JPïìUÉæöAiÀiÁ
(Ex-gratia) ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥sÀ® ¤ÃqÀzÀ
ªÀÄgÀUÀ½UÀÆ ±ÉÃ.10 gÀµÀÄÖ C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¥ÀƪÀðPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
11. As could be seen from said order of the Deputy
Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, on
consideration of all the Government Orders and
notifications issued in regard to valuation of trees, had
concluded that all trees which were cut and removed will
have to be treated as Class-A trees, and he went on to
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
assess the compensation by classifying the trees into five
categories as follows:
(i) coconut trees ;
(ii) areca nut trees ;
(iii) mango trees ;
(iv) fruit bearing trees ; and
(v) trees other than the aforesaid four categories.
12. It is thus clear that the Deputy Commissioner
classified fruit bearing trees into two categories: the first
being mango trees and all other fruit bearing trees as the
other category, to assess the compensation for the other
fruit bearing trees at Rs.14,800/-.
13. The Deputy Commissioner also made a fifth
classification in respect of the trees other than the four
categories i.e., other than coconut, areca nut, mango and
fruit bearing trees, as a separate category and concluded
that they would be entitled to the value determined by the
Government, plus an ex gratia amount of 10%.
Obviously, this fifth category would not be applicable to a
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
fruit bearing tree and can only relate to trees other than
those bearing fruit. Thus, it is clear that in respect of fruit
bearing trees, the Deputy Commissioner categorically
stated that each tree would have to be paid a
compensation of Rs.14,800/-.
14. Having regard to the stand taken by the Company in
its objections, it is clear that this order of the Deputy
Commissioner binds the Company, and the Company
cannot go beyond this order.
15. The District Judge, in the impugned order, however,
has proceeded to come to the conclusion that the
compensation determined by the Deputy Commissioner
should not be adopted and, on the other hand, the
guidelines issued by the Department of Horticulture
produced as Exhibit R-11 by the Company ought to be the
manner in which the value of the trees were to be
assessed. The District Judge has come to the conclusion
that Exhibit R-11 was a scientific method to assess the
compensation and has arrived at the conclusion that each
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
pomegranate tree would earn an annual income
Rs.511.45, and, out of this, the average annual cultivation
cost of Rs.166.15 ought to be deducted and the value of
the tree would have to be assessed at Rs.345.30, which,
in turn, should be multiplied by a factor of "10" as per the
decisions of this Court and has ultimately calculated the
value of the tree at Rs.3,712/- for each pomegranate tree.
16. The learned counsel for the landowner submitted
that this method adopted by the District Judge was
incorrect, having regard to the compensation already
determined by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the
very Project that was executed by the Company. He
submitted that the District Judge ought not to have
entered into the field of assessing the compensation for a
tree when the Deputy Commissioner had already
undertaken that exercise and this assessment was also
accepted by the Company.
17. The learned counsel for the Company, though
admitted that the compensation determined by the Deputy
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
Commissioner was binding on the Company, sought to
further contend that the classification of a pomegranate
tree as a fruit bearing tree and determining compensation
of Rs.14,800/- would not be correct since the Deputy
Commissioner had made a fifth category of other trees, for
which only the Government value would have to be
adopted and ex gratia of 10% was to be paid.
18. As already extracted above, the Deputy
Commissioner's order categorically assessed the
compensation in respect of five categories of trees. One
category of trees is specifically enumerated to include fruit
bearing trees and a sum of Rs.14,800/- was also fixed as
compensation. Once the Deputy Commissioner had fixed
the value of a fruit bearing tree, the question of adopting
another category (i.e., trees other than the fruit bearing
trees), and the three other categories mentioned at
clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) would not arise.
19. The learned counsel for the Company sought to
contend that the landowner himself did not state that they
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
were fruit bearing trees and, therefore, the application of
the Deputy Commissioner's compensation for a fruit
bearing tree cannot be accepted.
20. The learned counsel submits that the landowner
himself admitted that only 100 trees were fruit yielding
and that the other 200 were plants and, therefore, the
application of the Deputy Commissioner's assessment
cannot be made.
21. It is to be stated here that the Deputy Commissioner,
on consideration of all the notifications and the
Government Orders in relation to fixing the value of a tree,
determined the value of each fruit bearing tree as
Rs.14,800/-. The Deputy Commissioner did not make any
distinction of a tree which was yet to bear fruits, and a
tree which was already bearing fruits. As long as the tree
was a fruit bearing tree and ultimately yielded fruits, it will
have to be considered as a fruit bearing tree.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
22. The argument of the learned counsel also cannot be
accepted since the notice issued by the Company itself
indicated that they were pomegranate trees. The fact that
the notice made a distinction when it came to a small
coconut tree (i.e., a coconut tree which is yet to yield
coconuts) and a regular coconut tree, but yet, did not
make any such distinction while describing the
pomegranate trees would, by itself, demonstrate that the
Company itself had admitted that there were 250
pomegranate trees. Once the notice by the Company has a
clear indication that there were 250 pomegranate trees,
the Company would be estopped from contending the
contrary.
23. It may also be pertinent to state here that the
Company did not raise any contention in its objections that
the pomegranate trees found on the land were only
saplings and were not fruit bearing. No suggestion was
also made to the landowner that they were only saplings
and were not yielding any fruit. In light of this
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
observation, the arguments of the Company cannot be
accepted.
24. As a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled
for compensation as determined by the Deputy
Commissioner in his order dated 06.08.2015, which is
produced at Annexure-C to the landowner's writ petition
(as extracted above).
25. The argument of the landowner that there were 350
trees and not 250 cannot be accepted since there is
admittedly no material to indicate that there were 350
pomegranate trees.
26. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to the
following sum as compensation in respect of the
Pomegranate trees which were cut and removed, i.e., 250
Pomegranate Trees x Rs.14,800/- = Rs.37,00,000/-.
27. Since the petitioner has accepted the compensation
and has confined his petition only to pomegranate trees, it
will not be necessary to consider the claim in respect of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
the coconut trees or the neem trees or mango trees, as
mentioned in the notice.
28. The sum of Rs.37,00,000/- as calculated above shall
be made over the petitioner after deducting the amounts
paid, if any, including the ex gratia amount that has been
paid, and the remaining amount should be paid along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the
notice till the date of the payment.
29. The writ petitions filed by the Company as well as
land owner are accordingly disposed of.
30. The amount in deposit shall be made out to the
landowner i.e., the petitioner in WP No.17119 of 2021.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
