Karnataka High Court
Fransis P vs B R Narayanappa on 29 October, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
WP No. 4296 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 4296 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. FRANSIS P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
REGIONAL HEAD,
REFEX ENERGY LTD.,
NO. 35/2, PARK MANOR,
PARK ROAD, TASKAR TOWN,
BANGALORE-01.
2. REFEX ENERGY LTD.,
NO.67, BAZULLA ROAD, T.NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600 017.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER,
RAGHU.C., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GODEKOTIMATH SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: High
Court of B.R.NARAYANAPPA
Karnataka
S/O GIDDARAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O PALAVALLI VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
PIN-572 136.
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
WP No. 4296 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.Godekotimath Srikanth., counsel for the petitioners
has appeared in person.
An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on
18.03.2021. 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 parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial court.
3. The short facts are these:
It is stated that the M/s.Refex Energy Limited - second
respondent is a Company authorized to establish 33 KV and
220 KV Transmission line from power generation station to the
nearby 220 K.V sub-station. The first respondent is the
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
Regional Head of Bangalore Regional Office of M/s.Refex Energy
Limited.
It is stated that on 30.08.2016, the Deputy
Commissioner, Tumakuru issued order bearing No.MAG (1) CR
74/2015-16 and directed the respondent Company for payment
of compensation for different categories of tower structures and
compensation towards cutting of different types of trees while
drawing transmission line along with additional compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per acre to be paid to
the land owners for laying the 220 KV and 33 KV Transmission
Line.
The Company paid the compensation to the farmers in
accordance with the guidelines of the Deputy Commissioner,
Tumakuru at the time of erecting poles and laying the
transmission line. It is said that in some cases, the Company
has paid more amount of compensation to the farmers than the
guidelines amount given by the Deputy Commissioner,
Tumakuru and also guidelines given by the High Court of
Karnataka in various cases.
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
It is stated that the claimant filed an application for
additional compensation in Civil Misc. No.5036/2017 claiming
that he is the land owner of the land bearing Sy.No.294/2
measuring 05 Acres situated in Palavalli Village, Nagalamadike
Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District.
It is further stated that the respondents have drawn 120
KV K/C electric transmission line over the claimant's land and
also installed a tower in the land. The Company has paid a
meager compensation of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh
Ninety Thousand Only). It is contended by the landowner that
the value of the land is Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only)
per acre. However, the Company has paid meager amount of
compensation. Hence, he sought for additional compensation.
The claimant was examined as PW1 and produced five
documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The PA holder was
examined as RW1 and produced seven documents were marked
as Exs.R1 to R7. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide
Judgment dated 05.07.2019 awarded enhanced compensation
of Rs.89,500/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand and Five
Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
the date of drawing of electric wire over the petition land till
realization. Under these circumstances, the petitioners having
left with the no other alternate and efficacious remedy have
filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
4. Sri.Godekotimath Srikanth, counsel for petitioners
submits that the order is illegal, arbitrary and hence the same
is liable to be quashed.
Next, he submitted that the trial Court has erred in taking
the market value of the land as Rs.6,00,000/- per acre without
any basis.
A further submission was made that the Company has
installed both 33 KV Tower and 220 KV Tower drawn
transmission line and connected to 220 KV substation. Counsel
also submitted that 220 KV line are different from 220 KV
substation. Learned Judge has misdirected and has erroneously
concluded that the Company has installed 220 KV tower and
awarded compensation of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Thousand only).
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
Counsel vehemently contended that as per the Valuation
Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada, the market
value of the dry land is only Rs.60,000/- per acre. Counsel
drew the attention of the Court to Annexure-'C'. It is also
submitted that learned Judge has not considered the case
reported in the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL,
CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER VS DODDAKKA reported in
ILR 2015 KAR 677, in so far as diminishing value of the land.
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the
order is unjust and prayed that the writ petition may be
allowed.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers
with care.
I have perused Annexure-'C' with care. It is a Valuation
Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada. The market
value of the dry land is only Rs.60,000/- per acre. If the ratio
of DODDAKKA's case is applied to the facts and circumstances
of the present case, then the order requires modification.
The total measurement of the land is 05 Acres. There are
no standing trees, it is a dry land. The valuation of the land is
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
to be taken as per Sub-Registrar Value i.e., Rs.60,000/- per
Acre.
It is needless to say that 01 acre is equal to 40 guntas.
So, for 40 guntas, the valuation of the land will be Rs.60,000/-.
The Company has made use of the land to an extent of 38
Guntas. Hence, calculation for 38 guntas will be
Rs.60,000 X 38/40 = 57,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled for a sum of Rs.57,000/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand
only) towards valuation of land.
• 30% has to be deducted towards diminishing value of the
land per acre. The value of land per acre is Rs.60,000/-.
Hence, 30% of the diminishing value will be
60,000 X 30/100 = 18,000/-.
• Rs.18,000/- for 40 Guntas.
• For 38 Guntas: 18,000 X 38/40 = 17,100/-.
Hence, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,100/-
(Rupees Seventeen Thousand and One Hundred only) towards
diminishing value of the land to the extent of 38 guntas.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a sum of
Rs.57,000/- towards the value of the land and a sum of
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
Rs.17,100/- towards the diminishing value of the land. In total,
the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.74,100/-
(Rupees Seventy Four Thousand and One Hundred only).
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
Judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by the IV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in Civil Misc.No.5036/2017 is
modified holding that the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.74,100/- (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand
and One Hundred only).
Lastly, counsel Sri.Godekotimath Srikanth, submits that a
sum of Rs.3,90,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety Thousand
only) has already been paid to the claimant in the year 2016.
Counsel submits that in this petition, the compensation is
modified holding that the claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.74,100/-. However, the Authority has paid
a sum of Rs.3,90,000/-. Hence, there is no need to pay any
amount to the claimant.
Counsel further submits that by virtue of the interim
order the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-
before the Trial Court. He submits that in view of the
NC: 2024:KHC:43618
modification of the total compensation, a direction may be
issued to the Trial Court to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to
the petitioners.
Submission is noted. In view of modification of the total
compensation, the Trial Court is hereby directed to look into
the deposit made by M/s.Refex Energy Limited and if any
excess amount is deposited, the same shall be refunded to
M/s.Refex Energy Limited.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP
