Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) vs Sri. Dharanendraiah T on 29 October, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
WP No. 10568 of 2023
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. 10568 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (K.P.T.C.L),
KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
NO.4, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED (K.P.T.C.L),
KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. DHARANENDRAIAH.T
Digitally signed by
S/O. SRI.THIMMAIAH.G.,
THEJASKUMAR N PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Location: High RESIDING AT PANKAJANAHALLY,
Court of Karnataka
SHETTIKERE HOBLI,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.V.BHANUPRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
WP No. 10568 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LSITED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioners and
Sri.Bhanu Prakash.H.V., counsel for the respondent 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.10035/2018 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.98/4 situated at Pankajanahally Village,
Shettikere Hobli, Chikknayakanahally Taluk, Tumakuru District.
The KPTCL has drawn 220/110 KV electricity transmission line
from K.B. Cross to Thimmanahalli tapping point, which passes
through the petitioner's land. It is said that they have cut and
removed fruit bearing trees and destroyed crops.
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
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
220/110 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 a witness as
PW2 and produced twelve documents which were marked as
Exs.P.1 to P12. One Smt.Latha.B.T was examined as RW1 and
no documents were furnished on behalf of the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Judgment
dated 22.11.2022 awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,935/-
(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty
Five 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.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.
Next, he submitted that the aspect regarding cost of
cultivation has not been properly considered by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
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.Bhanu Prakash.H.V., 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 interference. Counsel therefore, submits that the
Writ Petition may be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
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. 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 and
Honge 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:
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:
SL.NO. NO. OF TREES YIELD PRICE (Rs.)
1. 01 125 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
• Rs.8,750/- for 01 Coconut Tree.
CALCULATION OF HONGE TREES
The Trial Court has awarded Rs.10,000/- per tree. The
same has to be modified as Rs.2,000/- per tree. There are 09
Honge Trees.
Rs.2,000 X 9 = Rs.18,000/-
The compensation awarded towards other trees remains
unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1. 01 Coconut Tree Rs.8,750/-
2. 04 Neem Trees Rs.52,000/-
3. 09 Honge Trees Rs.18,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
4. 08 Jali Trees Rs.16,000/-
5. 06 Arecanut Trees Rs.11,340/-
Total compensation Rs.1,06,090/-
Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,06,090/-
(Rupees One Lakh Six Thousand and Ninety only).
Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that the Authority has
already paid a sum of Rs.19,905/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand
Nine Hundred and Five only) while drawing up of the line.
Therefore, an amount of Rs.86,185/- (Rupees Eighty Six
Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Five only) is to be paid to
the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% from the date
petition till realization.
8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.
The Judgment dated 22.11.2022 passed by the Court of V Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10035/2018
is modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation
of Rs.86,185/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred and
NC: 2024:KHC:43628
Eighty Five only) is to be paid to the claimant with interest at
the rate of 6% 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.H.V.Devaraju., submits that
pursuant to the interim order, 75% 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 Claimant. If there is any
excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the Authorities.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
