Karnataka High Court

Executive Engineer (Ele.) vs B H Nanje Gowda on 24 October, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:42876
                                                           WP No. 2750 of 2020
                                                       C/W WP No. 7289 of 2024



                        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. 2750 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)
                                              C/W
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 7289 OF 2024

                      IN WP.NO.2750 OF 2020
                      BETWEEN:

                      1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
                         MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L.,
                         KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY,
                         TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

                      2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
                         MAJOR WORK DIVISION-IV,
                         K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
                         TUMUKURU CITY,
                         TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                                               ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by   AND:
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka    B.H.NANJE GOWDA
                      S/O B.N.HUCHAVEEREGOWDA,
                      MAJOR IN AGE,
                      R/AT AREMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
                      TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 226.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. YOGESH., ADVOCATE FOR
                          SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH.P.H., ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:42876
                                    WP No. 2750 of 2020
                                C/W WP No. 7289 of 2024



IN WP.NO.7289 OF 2024
BETWEEN:

B.H.NANJE GOWDA
S/O B.N.HUCHAVEEREGOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT AREMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADABA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 226.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. YOGESH., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH.P.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
   MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L.,
   KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
   TUMAKURU CITY,
   TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
   MAJOR WORK DIVISION-IV,
   K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
   TUMUKURU CITY,
   TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

       THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.

       THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
                                 -3-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:42876
                                             WP No. 2750 of 2020
                                         C/W WP No. 7289 of 2024



                         ORAL ORDER

Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda., counsel for the petitioners and

Sri.Yogesh., counsel on behalf of Sri.Virupakshaiah.P.H., for the

respondent have appeared in person.

Sri.Yogesh., counsel on behalf of Sri.Virupakshaiah.P.H.,

for the petitioner and Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda., counsel for the

respondents have appeared 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.236/2013 before the II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Tumakuru, and sought for enhanced compensation.

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land

bearing Sy.No.86/2 and 84/1 situated at Aremaranahalli

Village, Kadaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. The

KPTCL has drawn high tension electric line over the petitioner's

land. It is said that they have cut and removed fruit bearing

trees and destroyed crops.

NC: 2024:KHC:42876

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, they prayed for enhancement of

compensation with 15% interest.

After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed

statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn

110/11 K.V Electric Transmission Line through the petitioner's

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 seven documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to

P7. One Sri.J.Manohar., was examined as RW1 and no

documents were produced by him.

NC: 2024:KHC:42876

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Order dated

13.03.2019 awarded compensation of Rs.6,05,000/- (Rupees

Six Lakh Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8%

per annum from the date of petition till realization. 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.R.Srinivasa Gowda., counsel for the KPTCL

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.

NC: 2024:KHC:42876

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.Yogesh., counsel for the claimant submits that the

claimant has filed Writ Petition seeking enhancement of

compensation. Counsel urged several contentions.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

with care.

NC: 2024:KHC:42876

6. The short question that arises for consideration is

whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires

modification?

7. Counsel Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda., in presenting his

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 Mango Trees, Teak

Trees, Neem Trees and Coconut 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 MANGO TREES:

SL.NO.       NO. OF TREES             YIELD        PRICE (Rs.)
  1.                 24               50 Kg            30/-

                                                NC: 2024:KHC:42876





•    50 X 30 X 10 = 15,000/-

•    30% Cost of Cultivation = 15,000 X 30/100= 4,500/-

•    15,000 - 4,500 = Rs.10,500/- per tree

•    10,500 X 24 = Rs.2,52,000/- (for 24 Mango Trees).


CALCULATION OF TEAK TREES:

The Trial court has awarded Rs.5,500/- per tree. The

same has to modified as Rs.25,000/- per tree. There are 10

Teak Trees.

Rs.25,000 X 10 = Rs.2,50,000/-.

CALCULATION OF NEEM TREES:

The Trial court has awarded Rs.2,000/- per tree. The

same has to modified as Rs.13,000/- per tree. There are 5

Neem Trees.

Rs.13,000 X 5 = Rs.65,000/-.

CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:

SL.NO.         NO. OF TREES             YIELD        PRICE (Rs.)
    1.               14                  150             10/-


•    150 X 10 X 10 = 15,000/-

•    30% Cost of Cultivation = 15,000 X 30/100= 4,500/-

                                             NC: 2024:KHC:42876





•    15,000 - 4,500 = Rs.10,500/- per tree

•    10,500 X 14 = Rs.1,47,000/- (for 14 Coconut Trees).