Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Kempaiah on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30037
WP No. 12743 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 12743 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR, WORK DIVISION,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR
WORK DIVISION-IV
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASWATHAPPA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
KEMPAIAH
S/O KEMPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O OF AASHRIHALLI VILLAGE
Digitally signed by KANDIKERE HOBLI
GEETHAKUMARI
C N HALLI TALUK
PARLATTAYA S
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD.30.7.2019 PASSED CIVIL MISC NO.10014/2016 BY THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TIPTUR PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.7.2019 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC NO.10014/2016 BY THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE TIPTUR PRODUCED AS
ANNXURE-A, ALLOW THE W.P. WITH COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30037
WP No. 12743 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 30.07.2019 passed by V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Civil
Miscellaneous no.10014/2016, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri D. Aswathappa, learned counsel submitted this
petition was by respondents no.1 and 2 in petition filed by
respondent herein under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 ('Act' for short), for determination of damages on account
of drawing of 110/220 KV transmission line from K.B. Cross to
Thimmanahalli passing over extent of 02 Acres 25 guntas of
respondent's land bearing Sy.no.59/7 of Ashrihalli village,
Kandikere Hobli, C.N. Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District.
3. It was submitted that overhead electricity
transmission lines were drawn during 2015 and extent of
respondent's land falling under line was 22 metres in width. At
time of installation, 27 Coconut trees, 06 Neem trees, 15
Arecanut trees, 100 Banana plants, 24 Survey trees and 18
Eucalyptus trees were cut. It was submitted that though
NC: 2025:KHC:30037
HC-KAR
petitioners had granted compensation of Rs.2,36,904/- towards
same, respondent had filed application for determination of
damages before learned District and Sessions Judge as
provided under Section 16(3) of Act.
4. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed
following points for consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether, compensation paid by the
respondents to the petitioner in respect of
damages suffered by him is appropriate and
sufficient?
2. If not, what is the compensation the petitioner
is entitled to?
3. What order?
5. Respondent examined himself as PW.1 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P8. In support of claim for enhancement, it
was submitted, learned District Judge while calculating
compensation in respect of coconut trees adopted yield
method. Taking Rs.10/- as value of 1 coconut and 125 as yield
per coconut tree, applying capitalisation for 10 years, arrived at
total amount of Rs.3,37,500/-. It was specifically submitted
that deduction towards cultivation costs were not made.
NC: 2025:KHC:30037
HC-KAR
Therefore, assessment was excessive and without any proper
basis. On said ground sought for modification of order.
6. Heard, learned counsel for parties and perused writ
petition record.
7. Respondent - land loser is served unrepresented.
8. As noted above, only ground for challenging
assessment of compensation is insofar as coconut trees. There
is no dispute about number of coconut trees cut down or their
age/yield. Normally in case of income from cultivation or from
fruit bearing trees, cultivation costs have to be deducted.
Assessment by learned District Judge is without making
deduction of cultivation costs. This Court in case of Executive
Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga v. Doddakka, reported in
ILR 2015 KAR 677, has held same manner of assessment of
compensation while determining value of tree as done under
provisions of Land Acquisition Enactments has to be applied.
9. It is seen that learned District Judge referred to
said decision, but failed to apply ratio insofar as assessment of
market value of trees. It is seen that in Doddakka's case
NC: 2025:KHC:30037
HC-KAR
(supra), cost of cultivation was taken at 30%. Applying same,
compensation towards 27 coconut trees would require to be
reworked as (27 coconut trees X 125 coconuts X 10
multiplier X Rs.10/- per coconut = Rs.3,37,500/- (-)
30% = Rs.2,36,250/-). Thus there is reduction of
compensation by Rs.1,01,250/-. Since there is no challenge as
to assessment of compensation insofar as other trees and
diminished value. I pass following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. Impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by
V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiptur, in Civil Miscellaneous no.10014/2016
stands modified.
iii. Award of Rs.5,88,500/- stands reduced to
Rs.4,87,250/-.
iv. Petitioners to deposit balance amount, if
any, within four weeks from today.
v. On deposit, same to be released in favour of
respondent on proper identification.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
