Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer, Kptcl vs Sri. Basavaraju on 29 October, 2024

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                   -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC:43626
                                                           WP No. 5533 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. 5533 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                            KPTCL, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
                            KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
                            CORPORATION LIMITED, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
                            TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

                      2.  THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                          MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV,
                          KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
                          CORPORATION LIMITED, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
                          TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
                                                             ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA., AND
                          SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N               SRI. BASAVARAJU
Location: High              S/O HONNAGIRIYAPPA,
Court of
Karnataka                   SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,

                      1.    SMT.VANAJAKSHI.S
                            AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                            W/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
                            RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
                            KASABA HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK,
                            TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.

                      2.    SMT KAVITHA.K.B.
                            AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
                            D/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC:43626
                                              WP No. 5533 of 2021




     RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK,
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.

3.   SMT KAVYA.K.B.
     AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
     D/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
     RESIDING AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK,
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 214.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHRUTHI., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. M.VINAYAKEERTHY., ADVOCATE)

     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.Shirish Krishna., counsel for the petitioners and

Smt.Shruthi., counsel on behalf of Sri.M.Vinaya Keerthy., 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 petitioners filed a petition in Civil

Misc.No.10001/2016 before the V Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.

NC: 2024:KHC:43626

It is stated that the petitioners are the owners of the land

bearing Survey No.52/7 situated at Kedigehalli Village, Kasaba

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

220/110 KV electricity transmission line from Nonavinakere to

Gungarumale tapping point, which passes through the

petitioners' 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, they 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:43626

Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper. Accordingly,

they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

The first petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced

nine documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P9. One

Sri.Hanumantharayappa was examined as RW1 and no

documents were furnished on behalf of the respondents.

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

dated 23.07.2019 awarded compensation of Rs.1,53,513/-

(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and

Thirteen 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.Shirish Krishna., counsel for the petitioners

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

NC: 2024:KHC:43626

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.

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 have they 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.

Smt.Shruthi., counsel for the respondents justified the

order of the Trial Court. She vehemently submitted that the

NC: 2024:KHC:43626

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.

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.Shirish Krishna., 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.

NC: 2024:KHC:43626

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.                37                 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 37 = Rs.3,23,750/- (for 37 Coconut Trees).