[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Nanjundappa on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB
WA No. 1302 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1302 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION
KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD
KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572214
Digitally 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
signed by
NIRMALA ENGINEER
DEVI MAJOR WORKS DIVISION- IV
Location: KARNATAKA POWER
HIGH TRANSMISSION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CORPORATION LTD
KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572214
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJU H V, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB
WA No. 1302 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
NANJUNDAPPA
S/O DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O PANKAJANAHALLI VILLAGE
SHETTIKEREHOBLI,
C N HALLI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572111
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT WRIT
APPEAL AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP No-9724/2021 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP BEARING No-9724/2021 AS
PRAYED FOR AND GRANT OTHER SUCH FURTHER RELIEFS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.9724 of 2021 (GM-KEB).
NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB
HC-KAR
2. The appellants had preferred the said petition impugning
6the judgment dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned V
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in
Civil.Misc.No.10036 of 2016. The respondent had filed the said
petition under Section 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, r/w
Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the appellants in
respect of the respondent's land.
3. The respondent is the owner of land falling in Sy.No.99/1A2
at Pankajanahalli Village, Shettikere Hobli, C.N. Halli Taluk,
Tumakuru District. The appellants had drawn an electricity
transmission line from K.B. Cross to Thimmanahalli tapping point,
which passed through the land owned by the respondent. The
respondent had cultivated trees on the said land and was entitled
to compensation for the same.
4. The appellants determined the compensation at
`1,10,031/-. The learned District Judge enhanced the
compensation to `2,47,700/-. The compensation determined by the
learned District Judge for various types of trees is as under:-
NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB
HC-KAR
1. 25 Coconut trees `2,12,500/-
2. 01 Jali trees ` 4,000/-
3. 08 Neem trees ` 28,000/-
4. 04 Neem trees ` 3,200/-
TOTAL `2,47,700/-
5. The appellants' grievance is confined to the value of the
coconut trees, which was determined at `2,12,500/-.
6. A plain reading of the order dated 24.07.2019, which the
appellants impugned in the writ petition, indicates that the value of
coconut trees was determined on the assumption that each tree
would yield 125 coconuts annually and each coconut would yield a
value of `10/-. A multiplier of '10' was used, and the value of 17
coconut trees was determined as `2,12,500/- (17 trees X125
coconuts X 10 X `10/-)
7. The appellants argue that, although the learned Additional
District Judge assumed the value of the coconuts at `10/-, no
deductions were made for the cost of cultivation. They state that
30% of the coconut's value should have been deducted as
cultivation costs.
NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB
HC-KAR
8. It is relevant to note that the learned Additional District
Judge referred to a decision of the Court in The Executive
Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and Another Vs. Doddakka1 for
determining the compensation value of coconut trees. In the said
case, the cost of cultivation was taken as 30%, and the value of the
coconuts arrived at after deduction was determined at `5/-.
Following the same analogy, the learned Additional District Judge
determined the value of a coconut at `10/-, taking into account the
inflation over the years. The learned Additional District Judge has
not specifically mentioned a deduction of 30%, however,
considering that the value was determined by referring to the value
determined in Doddakka's case, where 30% of cultivation costs
had been adjusted prior to determination of the value, it is apparent
that the value of `10/-, determined by the learned Additional District
Judge is post the allowance for costs for cultivation.
9. The learned Single Judge also examined the method used
to determine compensation and concluded that the price of
coconut, as assumed, was, after allowance for cultivation costs.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appellants' writ petition as
ILR 2015 KAR 677
NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB
HC-KAR
without merit. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned
order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
Vmb
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
