Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) vs Vishwanatha S/O Marulappa (Since ... on 24 October, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42881
WP No. 13171 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 13171 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
BESCOM, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION-IV,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASWATHAPPA.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
VISHWANATHA S/O MARULAPPA,
Digitally signed by
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR),
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: High ARUNKUMAR
Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE VISHWANATHA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O OPP. MATHA RESIDENCY,
KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANU SHANKAR.S.S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42881
WP No. 13171 of 2021
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.Aswathappa.D., counsel for the petitioners has
appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.Manu Shankar.S.S., counsel for the respondent has
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.10005/2018 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.40/17 situated at Kibbanahalli Village,
Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL-
respondents have drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission
Line from K.B.Cross to Thimmanahalli tapping point, which
NC: 2024:KHC:42881
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:42881
The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced 11
documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P11. One
Sri.Ravi.B.A., 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
06.09.2019 awarded compensation of Rs.2,71,700/- (Rupees
Two Lakh Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred only) 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
NC: 2024:KHC:42881
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.
Sri.Manu Shankar.S.S., 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
NC: 2024:KHC:42881
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.
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 award of
compensation is just and proper. I find no reasons either to
enhance or reduce the compensation awarded by the Trial
Judge. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP/TKN
