Karnataka High Court
Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Parameshwaraiah on 24 October, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
WP No. 12748 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. 12748 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION-IV,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASWATHAPPA.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
PARAMESHWARAIAH
Digitally signed by S/O LINGAPPA,
PREMCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
MR R/O NEERAGUNDA VILLAGE,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka KASABA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PATEL.D.KAREGOWDA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
WP No. 12748 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 through video conferencing.
Sri.Harish., counsel on behalf of Sri.Patel D.Karegowda.,
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.10044/2016 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.14/2A situated at Kolaghattakaval Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL-
respondents have drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission
Line from K.B.Cross to Turuvekere tapping point, which passes
through petitioner's garden land. They have cut and removed
fruit bearing trees and destroyed crops.
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
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.
The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced eight
documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P8. One
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
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
03.08.2019 awarded compensation of Rs.3,53,515/- (Rupees
Three Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen
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
enhancing the compensation has resulted in causing great
prejudice to the interest and right of the Authority.
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
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.Harish., 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
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
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. 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
Bamboo 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
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. 7 125 10/-
• 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 7 = Rs.61,250/- (for 7 Coconut Trees).
CALCULATION OF BAMBOO TREES:
The Trial court has awarded Rs.3,000/- per tree. The
same has to modified as Rs.500/- per tree. There are 108
Bamboo Trees.
Rs.500 X 108 = Rs.54,000/-.
The compensation awarded as far as Ala Trees and Neem
Trees remains unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
1. 7 Coconut Trees Rs.61,250/-
2. 108 Bamboo Trees Rs.54,000/-
3. 01 Ala Trees Rs.4,000/-
4. 02 Neem Trees Rs.4,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.1,23,250/-
7. Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,23,250/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred and
Fifty only).
Counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that the Authority
has already paid a sum of Rs.65,985/- (Rupees Sixty Five
Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Five only) while drawing up
of the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.57,265/- (Rupees Fifty
Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five only) is to be paid
to the claimant with interest at the rate of 8% from the date
petition till realization.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
Order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Court of V Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10044/2016 is
NC: 2024:KHC:42880
modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation of
Rs.57,265/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and
Sixty Five only) with interest at the rate of 8% 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.
9. 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
MRP,TKN
