Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Kempaiah on 16 June, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
WP No. 16382 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 16382 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. ASHWATHAPPA.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R KEMPAIAH
Location: HIGH W/O RANGAMMA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O JANEHAR VILLAGE,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
C.N.HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
WP No. 16382 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Ashwathappa.D., counsel for the petitioners has
appeared through video conferencing.
Notice to the respondent was ordered on 08.09.2021. A
perusal of the office note depicts that respondent is served and
unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an
advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the status of parties is
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil Misc.
No.10023/2016 before the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land
bearing Sy.No.32/P2 situated at Janeharr Village, Kandikere
Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The respondents have
drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission line from
Thimmanahalli to Kattrikehal tapping point, which passes
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
HC-KAR
through petitioner's garden land. They have cut and removed
fruit bearing trees and destroyed crops.
It is stated that the compensation awarded 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 high-
tension wire over his land there is diminution of value of the
land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation
with interest.
After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed
statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn
220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line which passes through
petitioner's land and that notice was issued to remove trees
and crops. 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:20521
HC-KAR
The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced five
documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P5. One
Sri.Hanumanthrayappa was examined as RW1 and no
documents were produced on behalf of respondents.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Judgment
dated 16.07.2019 awarded enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,49,160/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Nine Thousand One
Hundred and Sixty only) with interest of 8% per annum from
the date of filing of petition, till the date of recovery. 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.Aswathappa.D., 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
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
HC-KAR
enhancing the compensation has resulted in causing great
prejudice to the interest and right of the Authority.
Counsel submitted that Trial Judge has 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.
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. The facts are not in dispute. I have carefully
perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The award of
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
HC-KAR
amount in respect of Honge, Uddude, Tereda, Jali and Byala
Trees require modification.
CALCULATION OF HONGE TREES:
There are ten Honge Trees. The Trial Court has awarded
Rs.4,000/- per tree. The same has to be modified as Rs.2,000/-
per tree.
Rs.2,000 X 10 = Rs.20,000/-.
CALCULATION OF UDDUDE TREES:
There are six Uddude Trees. The Trial Court has awarded
Rs.4,500/- per tree. The same has to be modified as Rs.2,000/-
per tree.
Rs.2,000 X 6 = Rs.12,000/-.
CALCULATION OF TEREDA TREES:
There are eight Tereda Trees. The Trial Court has
awarded Rs.4,000/- per tree. The same has to be modified as
Rs.2,000/- per tree.
Rs.2,000 X 8 = Rs.16,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
HC-KAR
CALCULATION OF JALI TREES:
There are four Jali Trees. The Trial Court has awarded
Rs.4,500/- per tree. The same has to be modified as Rs.2,000/-
per tree.
Rs.2,000 X 4 = Rs.8,000/-.
CALCULATION OF BYALA TREES:
There are four Byala Trees. The Trial Court has awarded
Rs.3,000/- per tree. The same has to be modified as Rs.2,000/-
per tree.
Rs.2,000 X 4 = Rs.8,000/-.
The compensation awarded towards Neem Trees remains
unaltered. Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1. 10 Honge Trees Rs.20,000/-
2. 06 Uddude Trees Rs.12,000/-
3. 08 Tereda Trees Rs.16,000/-
4. 08 Neem Trees Rs.36,000/-
5. 04 Jali Trees Rs.8,000/-
6. 04 Byala Trees Rs.8,000/-
TOTAL Rs.1,00,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
HC-KAR
8. Taking into consideration the above calculation, the
claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only).
Counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that the Authority
has already paid a sum of Rs.19,840/- (Rupees Nineteen
Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty only) while drawing up of
the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.80,160/- (Rupees Eighty
Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only) is to be paid to the
claimant with interest at the rate of 6% from the date petition
till realization.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.
The Order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Court of V Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10023/2016
is modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation
of Rs.80,160/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand One Hundred and
Sixty only) 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.
NC: 2025:KHC:20521
HC-KAR
10. Lastly, counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that
pursuant to the interim order, 50% 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
