Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) vs Sri. Thimmaiah on 4 November, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
WP No. 10518 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 10518 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (K.P.T.C.L),
KOTHITOPU ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (K.P.T.C.L.),
NO.4, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KOTHITOPU ROAD, TUMKURU TOWN,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N SRI. THIMMAIAH
Location: High (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS),
Court of
Karnataka SRI.SHIVARAJU H.T.,
S/O. LATE. THIMMAIAH,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HATNA VILLAGE,
KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK-572 201.
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
WP No. 10518 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioners has
appeared in person.
An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on
29.05.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that the
respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither
engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as
a party in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the status of parties is
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil Misc.
No.10012/2019 before the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land
bearing Sy.No.169/2B situated at Hatna Village, Kibbanahally
Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL has drawn
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line from K.B.Cross to
Thimmanahalli tapping point, which passes through petitioner's
land. They have cut and removed fruit bearing trees and
destroyed crops.
It is stated that the compensation awarded 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 wire over his land there is diminution of value of the
land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation
with interest.
After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed
statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn
220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line which passes through
petitioner's land and that notice was issued to remove trees
and crops. The compensation awarded by the Authority is
based on the report of the Senior Assistant Director of
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
Horticulture. Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper
accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced
fourteen documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P14. One
Smt.Latha.B.T was examined as RW1 and no documents were
produced on behalf of respondents.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order dated
22.11.2022 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.4,78,476/-
(Rupees Four Lakh Seventy-Eight Thousand Four Hundred and
Seventy-Six only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum
from the date of petition. It is this order that is called into
question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in
the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
4. Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the
fact that the KPTCL has 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
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
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, he 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, he submitted that learned Trial Judge erred in not
taking into consideration the vital and key facts that the
Authority has 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, he
submitted that award of compensation requires modification
and therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
6. The short question that arises for consideration is
whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires
modification?
7. Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., in presenting his
arguments drew the attention of the 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 Trees and
Teak 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.
If we deduct 30% of cost of cultivation, the calculation
will be as under:
CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:
SL.NO. NO. OF TREES YIELD PRICE (Rs.)
1. 3 125 Kg 10/-
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
• 125 X 10 X 10 = 12,500/-
• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 12,500 X 30/100= 3,750/-
• 12,500 - 3,750 = Rs.8,750/- per tree
• 8,750 X 3 = Rs.26,250/- (for 3 Coconut Trees).
CALCULATION OF TEAK TREES:
There are 20 Teak Trees aged two years. The Trial court
has awarded Rs.25,000/- per tree. The same has to modified as
Rs.5,000/- per tree.
Rs.5,000 X 20 = Rs.1,00,000/-.
The compensation awarded as far as Bilvara Trees
remains unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1. 03 Coconut Trees Rs.26,250/-
2. 20 Teak Trees Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Bilvara Trees Rs.4,250/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,30,500/-
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,30,500/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand Five Hundred only).
Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that the Authority has
already paid a sum of Rs.57,274/- (Rupees Fifty Seven
Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Four only) while drawing
up of the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.73,226/- (Rupees
Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Six only) is
to be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date petition till realization.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
Judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Court of V Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10012/2019
is modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation
of Rs.73,226/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred
and Twenty Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% from the
date 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44218
9. Lastly, counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that
pursuant to the interim order, 50% of the award amount has
already been deposited before the Trial Court. Hence, an
appropriate order may be passed.
Submission is noted. 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/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 77.2
