Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) vs Sri T Kumaraswamy on 5 November, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
WP No. 11316 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 11316 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION-IV,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.ASWATHAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SRI T.KUMARASWAMY
THEJASKUMAR N S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka R/O PANKAJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SHETTIKERE HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
WP No. 11316 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Aswathappa.D., counsel for the petitioners has
appeared in person.
An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on
29.06.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the
respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has
neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the
case as a party 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
Misc.No.10075/2018 before the V Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land
bearing Survey No.66/2C situated at Pankajanahalli Village,
Shettikere Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL
has drawn 220/110KV high tension electric line over the
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
petitioner's land. It is said that they have cut and removed fruit
bearing trees and destroyed 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
Electric Transmission Line over the land, there is diminution of
value of the land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed
statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn
220/110 K.V Electric Transmission Line through the petitioners'
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 got examined himself as PW1 and
produced eleven documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
P11. One Sri.Ravi.B.A was examined as RW1 and no documents
were produced on behalf of the respondents.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Order dated
06.09.2019 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.8,992/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two only)
with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
filing of petition till the date of recovery. 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.D.Aswathappa., 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
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.
6. The short question that arises for consideration is
whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires
modification?
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
7. Counsel for the petitioners in presenting her
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 Arecanut 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 ARECANUT TREES:
SL.NO. NO. OF TREES YIELD PRICE (Rs.)
1. 10 2 Kg 150/-
• 150 X 2 X 10 = 3,000/-
• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 3,000 X 30/100= 900/-
• 3,000 - 900 = Rs.2,100/- per tree
• 2,100 X 10 = Rs.21,000/- (for 10 Arecanut Trees).
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
8. Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees
Twenty-One Thousand only).
Counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that the Authority
has already paid a sum of Rs.41,008/- (Rupees Forty-One
Thousand and Eight only) while drawing up of the line.
Therefore, the claimant has received excess amount of
Rs.20,008/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Eight only) and the
same should be repaid to the authority.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
Order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the Court of V Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10075/2018 is
modified. The claimant is directed to repay the excess amount
of Rs.20,008/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Eight only) to
the authority.
Lastly, counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44391
Submission is noted. The Trial Court is directed to look
into the deposit made by the Authority and calculate the same
and refund the excess amount to the Authority.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
