Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Narasimhamurthy on 16 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
WP No. 9605 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 9605 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
KOTHIOPU ROAD, TUMKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION - IV,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION,
CORPORATION LTD., KOTHIOPU ROAD,
TUMKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by C AND:
HONNUR NARASIMHAMURTHY,
SAB
S/O BEERAIAH,
Location: AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF TAGGIHALI, NITTUR HOBLI,
KARNATAKA GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572216.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR D K, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 10.11.2022 PASSED BY THE VII
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
WP No. 9605 of 2023
ADDL DIST JUDGE TUMAKURU IN CIVIL MISC NO.292/2020
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners as well as
learned counsel appearing for respondent.
2. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated
10.11.2022 passed in Civil Misc.No.292/2020 by VII Additional
District Judge, Tumakuru.
3. It is not in dispute that petitioners have laid High
Tension Electric Lines over the property of the respondent.
Since the compensation is required to be paid for such an act,
petitioners assessed compensation on their own and paid
Rs.15,15,143/-. Aggrieved by the said determination by the
petitioners, respondent/owner raised a dispute in Civil
Misc.No.292/2020 and sought higher compensation.
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
4. Parties led evidence before the Trial Court. Trial Court
on considering the evidence on record by following the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL Vs. DODDAKKA1, which is
subsequently upheld by the Division Bench, has determined
the compensation as under :-
"Misc.No.292/2020 is party allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.10,62,750/- about diminution of land value with
interest at 8% p.a. from 5/1/2018 till payment.
Further, the Petitioner is also entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.1,23,600/- towards cutting of 12
coconut trees with interest at 8% p.a. from 5/1/2018 till
payment.
Further, the Petitioner is also entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,09,700/- towards cutting of 163
arecanut trees with interest at 8% p.a. from 5/1/2018 till
payment.
Respondent is directed to pay compensation amount
along with accrued interest within sixty days from today.
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
The entire awarded compensation with interest shall be
paid to the petitioner, after deposit.
Draw an award accordingly."
Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit
that compensation awarded by Trial Court is contrary to the law
laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DODDAKKA'S
case cited supra. It is his further submission that
compensation of Rs.15,15,143/- paid by the petitioners is not
deducted in the impugned order. He would submit that Trial
Court has re-determined the compensation and has not passed
an order to pay compensation over and above the
compensation already paid by the petitioners, as such the
impugned order, which has not taken into account the
compensation paid by the petitioners, is unsustainable.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that
the respondent filed a petition seeking enhancement of
compensation in addition to what is awarded by the petitioners.
It is his contention that petition is allowed granting additional
compensation, as such there is no need for the Trial Court to
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
deduct compensation already paid by the petitioners, thus he
would urge that the petition has to be dismissed.
7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the records.
8. There is no dispute that petitioners have laid High
Tension Wire over the property of the respondent. The extent
of the property is 65 guntas. Trial Court has assessed value of
each gunta of land at Rs.54,500/- and that market value is
arrived at by referring to Ex.P.7 document produced by the
respondent in this petition. Since the ownership of the land is
not lost and it is still with the respondent, Trial Court has
considered diminution in the value of land, by deducting 30%
on market value. Thus value is arrived at Rs.10,62,750/-
towards diminution of land value.
9. Insofar as crop value is concerned, Trial Court has held
that for loss of coconut trees which were 12 in number,
respondent is entitled to Rs.1,23,600/-. Trial Court has taken
the value of each coconut at Rs.10/-.
10. It is noticed that nothing is deducted towards cost of
cultivation. As far as Arecanut trees are concerned, trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
has noticed that there are 163 Arecanut trees and yield per
Arecanut tree is taken at 2 kgs per tree and the income per
tree is taken at Rs.190/- and multiplier '10' is applied and
compensation of Rs.3,09,700/- is determined as compensation
for 163 arecanut trees.
11. Trial Court has also awarded interest at the rate of 8%
p.a., on the compensation determined from 05.01.2018 till the
date of payment.
12. It is noticed from the impugned order that Trial Court has
not taken into account compensation determined and paid by
the petitioners. In fact Trial Court should have taken that
aspect into account.
13. The compensation determined by Trial Court comes to
Rs.14,96,050/- without interest. However, it is noticed that
petitioners have awarded Rs.15,15,143/- and last instalment of
compensation was paid on 24.12.2018. Thus what emerges is
the compensation paid is in excess of the compensation
determined by the Trial Court.
14. It is also noticed that in respect of the area occupied by
the Tower, petitioners have awarded compensation of
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
Rs.2,00,000/-. Trial Court has not awarded compensation in
respect of the area occupied by the Tower. It is also noticed
that compensation awarded by petitioners towards loss of
Arecanut trees is in excess of, what is determined by the Trial
Court and insofar as compensation relating to coconut trees is
concerned, Trial Court has not deducted 30% towards
cultivation expenses as held in DODDAKKA'S case.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view, that
impugned order is not sustainable and has to be set aside and
accordingly set aside.
16. However, learned counsel for petitioners makes a
statement on instructions that petitioners are not insisting for
refund of compensation amount already paid to respondent,
though it is in excess of what is determined by Trial Court. The
said submission is placed on record.
17. Hence I pass the following :-
ORDER
a. The petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:1709
b. The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed in Civil
Misc.No.292/2020 by VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru,
is set aside.
c. It is made clear that petitioners shall not insist for refund
of any amount from the respondent.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
NG
CT:VN
