Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Chittaiah on 5 November, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44393
WP No. 12750 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. 12750 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE ASST. EXECUITVE ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION-IV,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASWATHAPPA.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHITTAIAH
THEJASKUMAR N S/O CHITTAIAH,
Location: High AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka R/O JANEHAR VILLAGE,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
TIPTUR 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:44393
WP No. 12750 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
30.07.2021. 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 status of parties is
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil Misc.
No.10028/2016 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.32/P2 situated at Janehar Village, Kandikere
Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL-
respondents have drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission
NC: 2024:KHC:44393
Line from Thimmanahalli to Katrikehal tapping point, which
passes through petitioner's garden 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
Horticulture. Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper
accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:44393
The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced seven
documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P7. One
Sri.Hanumantharayappa 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
10.07.2019 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.2,19,678/-
with interest 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.Aswathappa.D., 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:44393
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:44393
7. The facts are not in dispute. I have carefully
perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The learned Judge
has deducted 30% towards cost of cultivation as per 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
Mango 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. 15 125 10/-
• 125 X 10 X 10 = 12,500/-
• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 12,500 X 30/100= 3,750/-
NC: 2024:KHC:44393
• 12,500 - 3,750 = Rs.8,750/- per tree
• 8,750 X 15 = Rs.1,31,250/- (for 15 Coconut Trees).
CALCULATION OF MANGO TREES:
SL.NO. NO. OF TREES YIELD PRICE
(Rs.)
1. 1 50Kg 75/-
• 50 X 75 X 10 = 37,500/-
• 30% Cost of Cultivation = 37,500 X 30/100= 11,250/-
• 37,500 - 11,250 = Rs.26,250/- per tree
• Rs.26,250/- (for 01 Mango Tree).
The compensation awarded as far as Neem Trees remains
unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1. 15 Coconut Trees Rs.1,31,250/-
2. 1 Mango Tree Rs.26,250/-
3. 03 Neem Trees Rs.13,500/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,71,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:44393
8. Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,71,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Seventy-One Thousand only).
Counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that the Authority
has already paid a sum of Rs.18,822/- (Rupees Eighteen
Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two only) while drawing
up of the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,52,178/- (Rupees
One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-Eight
only) is to be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of
6% from the date petition till realization.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.
The Order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Court of V Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10028/2016
is modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation
of Rs.1,52,178/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand One
Hundred and Seventy-Eight 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:44393
10. 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.
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 Claimants. If there is any
excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the Authorities.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
