Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) vs Sri. Honnaiah D R on 4 November, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
WP No. 10619 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. 10619 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL),
KOTHITOPU ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
NO.4, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL, KOTHITOPU ROAD,
TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. HONNAIAH.D.R.
Digitally signed by S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
THEJASKUMAR N PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Location: High RESIDING AT DUGADIHALLY VILLAGE,
Court of
Karnataka KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. AJIT.P.B., ADVOCATE)
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:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
WP No. 10619 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioners and
Sri.Ajit.P.B., counsel for the respondent have appeared 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.10011/2019 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.31/2 situated at Dugadihally Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The
KPTCL has drawn 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
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
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
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 a witness as
PW2 and produced ten documents which were marked as
Exs.P.1 to P10. 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.2,04,550/-
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
(Rupees Two Lakh Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only)
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
filing 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
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
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.
Counsel for the respondent justified the order of the Trial
Court. He vehemently submitted that the Trial Judge has
extenso referred to the material on record and awarded
compensation. Hence, the order does not require any
interference. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition
may be dismissed.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
6. The short question that arises for consideration is
whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires
modification?
7. The facts are not in dispute. I have carefully
perused the order passed by the Trial Court. Suffice it to note
that Trial Judge extenso referred to the material on record and
has awarded the compensation. In my view, the compensation
awarded is just and proper. I find no reasons either to enhance
or reduce the compensation awarded by the Trial Judge.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant
time, this Court deems it appropriate to award interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount from the
date of petition till realization. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled for compensation of Rs.2,04,550/- (Rupees Two Lakh
Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
It is needless to observe that the KPTCL Authority shall
deposit the compensation amount within six weeks from the
date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:44217
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.
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.
In view of modification of the rate of interest, the Trial
Court is directed to look into the deposit made by the Authority
and calculate the same and pay the amount to the claimant.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
