Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Sri. J.K.Maheshwaraiah on 28 October, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                            -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:43447
                                                        WP No. 5383 of 2022




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 5383 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
               BETWEEN:

               1.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
                     MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL,
                     KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY,
                     TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.

               2.  THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
                   NO. 4, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L.,
                   KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU CITY,
                   TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.
                                                          ...PETITIONERS
               (BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

               AND:

                    SRI. J.K.MAHESHWARAIAH
                    S/O. SRI. KAMBEGOWDA,
                    PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
Digitally signed by RESIDNG AT THOOBREHALLI VILLAGE,
THEJASKUMAR N SHETTIGERE HOBLI,
Location: High      CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
Court of
Karnataka           TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 227.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
               (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

                      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:
                                  -2-
                                                      NC: 2024:KHC:43447
                                                     WP No. 5383 of 2022




                            ORAL ORDER

Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioners has

appeared in person.

2. An emergent notice to the respondent was

ordered on 06.07.2022. 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.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil

Misc.No.10057/2014 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.35/1 situated at J.C.Pura Village, Shettikere

Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL has drawn

110/10 KV electricity transmission line from K.B. Cross to

Thimmanahalli tapping point, which passes through the

NC: 2024:KHC:43447

petitioner's garden 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

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 as PW1 and three witnesses

as PW2 to 4 and produced nine documents which were marked

as Exs.P.1 to P9. One Sri.Hanumantharayappa., was examined

NC: 2024:KHC:43447

as RW1 and no documents were furnished on behalf of the

respondents.

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Judgment

dated 03.02.2021 awarded compensation of Rs.3,28,269/-

(Rupees Three Lakh Twenty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred and

Sixty-Nine 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.

5. Sri.H.V.Devaraju., 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:43447

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.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

with care.

7. The short question that arises for consideration is

whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires

modification?

NC: 2024:KHC:43447

8. Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., 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 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 COCONUT TREES:

SL.NO.          NO. OF TREES             YIELD         PRICE (Rs.)
    1.                  16                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 16 = Rs.1,40,000/- (for 16 Coconut Trees).

                                              NC: 2024:KHC:43447