Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer Electrical vs M B Shivanna on 12 June, 2025

Author: Jyoti Mulimani

Bench: Jyoti Mulimani

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:20099
                                                         WP No. 10426 of 2020


                      HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                                DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
                                               BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10426 OF 2020 (GM-KEB)
                  BETWEEN:

                  1.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
                         MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L.,
                         KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN,
                         TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 101.

                  2.  ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),
                      MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV, K.P.T.C.L.,
                      KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN,
                      TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
                                                           ...PETITIONERS
                  (BY SMT. DEEPIKA., ADVOCATE FOR
                      SMT. RAKSHITHA.D.J., ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                  1.     M.B.SHIVANNA
                         S/O BASAVEGOWDA,
Digitally signed by      R/O MALAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH           SHETTIKERE HOBLI,
COURT OF                 C.N.HALLI TALUK,
KARNATAKA                TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 214.
                         SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,

                  1(A) SMT. B.G.VIJAYAKUMARI,
                       W/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
                       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                       R/AT NO. 750, 2ND CROSS,
                       PUMP HOUSE ROAD, GOVINDAPURA,
                       TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
                                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                  (R1(A)-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
                                   -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:20099
                                              WP No. 10426 of 2020


HC-KAR




     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

Smt.Deepika., counsel on behalf of Smt.Rakshitha.D.J.,

for the petitioners has appeared in person.

A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that notice to

respondent No.1(A) was ordered on 04.11.2022. A perusal of

the office note depicts that respondent No.1(A) is served and

unrepresented. She has neither engaged the services of a

counsel nor conducted the case as a party 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.10013/2016 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 Nos.87/4, 78/1P-P2, 88/1 and 78/1P-P2

situated at Malagondnahalli Village, Shettikere Hobli, C.N.Halli

NC: 2025:KHC:20099

HC-KAR

Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL - respondents have drawn

220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line from K.B.Cross to

Thimmanahalli tapping point, which passes through petitioner's

garden land. 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, he prayed for enhancement of

compensation.

After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed

statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn

220/11 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.

NC: 2025:KHC:20099

HC-KAR

The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced eleven

documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P11. The

respondents neither adduced oral evidence nor furnished

documentary evidence.

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

dated 30.10.2019 enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,63,337/-

(Rupees Seven Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Three Hundred and

Thirty Seven only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of recovery. It is this

Judgment that is called into question in this Writ Petition on

several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

4. Smt.Deepika., 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.

NC: 2025:KHC:20099

HC-KAR

Next, she 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, she 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, she

submitted that award of compensation requires modification

and therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.

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?

NC: 2025:KHC:20099

HC-KAR

7. Counsel Smt.Deepika., in presenting her arguments

drew the attention of the Court to the decision 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 amount in respect of Coconut Trees and Jali

Trees require modification.

If we deduct 30% of cost of cultivation in view of

DODDAKKA's case, the calculation towards Coconut Trees will

be as under:

CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:

SL.NO.          NO. OF TREES              YIELD     PRICE (Rs.)
  1.                 27                    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 27 = Rs.2,36,250/- (for 27 Coconut Trees).


CALCULATION OF JALI TREES:

The compensation of Rs.1,000/- awarded towards 2 Jali

Trees aged 2 years remain unaltered.

NC: 2025:KHC:20099

HC-KAR

The Trial court has awarded Rs.4,000/- each for 8 Jali

Trees aged 11 years. The same has to modified as Rs.2,000/-

per tree. There are 8 Jali Trees aged 11 years.