Karnataka High Court
M/S Kudgi Transmission Limited vs Mr. S Narayanappa on 7 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
WP No. 17119 of 2021
C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 17119 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14116 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
IN W.P.No.17119/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYANAPPA
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O SANTHEPETE
SIRA TOWN-572137
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
signed by
KIRAN TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KUMAR R TUMAKURU-572101.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. M/S KUDLIGI TRANSMISSION LTD
KARNATAKA
NO.38, CUBBON ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
BY ITS SECRETARY / MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-1;
SRI. I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
WP No. 17119 of 2021
C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN
MIS.NO.76/2016 DATED 5.4.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE
WRIT PETITION, ETC.
IN W.P.No.14116/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KUDGI TRANSMISSION LIMITED,
(ERRONEOUSLY DESCRIBED AS KUDLIGI
TRANSMISSION LTD., IN THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND IN THE LOWER COURT
RECORDS)
A PUBLIC COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.38,
CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 AND
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS DULY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. OJES C.MADAPATTU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. S.NARAYANAPPA,
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH,
AGED 53 YEARS,
R/AT SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DECREE DATED
05.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043
WP No. 17119 of 2021
C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN CIVIL
MISCELLANEOUS No.76/2016 ANNEXURE-B, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The order assessing compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ("the Act") for laying power lines, is the subject matter of these writ petitions.
2. The owner of the land has preferred W.P. No.17119 of 2021 being dissatisfied with the compensation, while the Company i.e., the beneficiary is also before this Court in W.P. No. 14116 of 2021 contending that the compensation assessed is exorbitant.
3. The fact is that the land of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.136/2 of Kotta village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur district was utilized for executing the 765 kV D/C (Hexa Zebra) Narendra (New) - Madhugiri Line.
4. It is also not in dispute that the Company issued a notice dated 04.03.2016, as required under the Act, which -4- NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 is also produced as Exhibit P-6 by the land-owner. This notice indicates the particulars of crop/trees/plantation damaged or cut in the following manner:
Crop Area Damage/tree Name of affected in s/plantation S.No Section Crop/plantation Type sqmtr/ cut during /trees No of trees (FDN/EREC/ STRGG) Borewell 1 250 x 2,500 6,25,000 Pomegranate 250 30 x 15,000 4,50,000 Cocunut (Small) 30 6 x 20,000 1,20,000 1 61/6-61/7 Cocunut 6 20 x 5,000 1,00,000 Corridor 20 guntas 1 x 7,000 7,000 Neem 1 Total Amount 13,02,000
5. As could be seen from said notice, the Company admitted that it had cut 250 Pomegranate trees, 30 Small coconut trees, 06 regular coconut trees and 01 neem tree apart from utilizing 20 guntas of land for the corridor. This notice also indicates the existence of a borewell.
6. In the notice, the Company assessed the compensation payable in respect of Pomegranate trees at -5- NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 Rs.2,500/-, for a small coconut tree at Rs.15,000/- and for a regular coconut tree at Rs.20,000/-.
7. Being dissatisfied with the compensation determined, the land-owner initiated proceedings seeking enhancement of the compensation as provided under Section 16(3) of the Act.
8. This claim was resisted by the Company. In the objections filed by the Company, the Company while admitting the fact that it had cut and removed the trees, stated as follows as regards the compensation payable:
"10. It us further necessary to stating here that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Tumakuru held the joint meeting on the representation of the formers and formers union in respect to fixing of compensation. In the said meeting, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru, with the consent of the formers fixed the compensation obtained the report from the Sub Registrar in respect to the compensation for the land department of Horticulture in respect to compensation for the horticulture crops, -6- NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 department of Agriculture in respect to compensation for the agricultural crops and department of forest in respect to compensation for the forest trees. The copy of the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Tumakuru dated______ is herewith produced as respondent document No.______ for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."
9. As could be seen from the above, the Company admitted that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order determining the compensation payable to the trees which were cut and removed for the purpose of execution of the project.
10. The landowner, in support of his claim for enhancement, placed reliance on the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.08.2015. It may be relevant to reproduce the particular portion of the order which relates to payment of compensation in respect of trees, and the same reads as under:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 "5) ¥ÀªÀgï ¯ÉÊ£ï ¤ªÀiÁðtzÀ ºÁ¢AiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ J¯Áè vÀgÀºÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁè¸ï-J ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹ F PɼÀPÁt¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¹zÉ.
(1) MAzÀÄ vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 16,314/-
(2) MAzÀÄ CrPÉ ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 3,728/-
(3) MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ«£À ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 27,862/-
(4) MAzÀÄ ¥sÀ®ºÁgÀ ªÀÄgÀPÁÌV - gÀÆ. 14,800/-
(5) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄgÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹zÀ zÀgÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ºÀDUÀÆ eÉÆvÉUÉ ±ÉÃ.10 gÀµÀÄÖ JPïìUÉæöAiÀiÁ (Ex-gratia) ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥sÀ® ¤ÃqÀzÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ½UÀÆ ±ÉÃ.10 gÀµÀÄÖ C£ÀÄzÁ£À ¥ÀƪÀðPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."
11. As could be seen from said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of all the Government Orders and notifications issued in regard to valuation of trees, had concluded that all trees which were cut and removed will have to be treated as Class-A trees, and he went on to -8- NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 assess the compensation by classifying the trees into five categories as follows:
(i) coconut trees ;
(ii) areca nut trees ;
(iii) mango trees ;
(iv) fruit bearing trees ; and
(v) trees other than the aforesaid four categories.
12. It is thus clear that the Deputy Commissioner classified fruit bearing trees into two categories: the first being mango trees and all other fruit bearing trees as the other category, to assess the compensation for the other fruit bearing trees at Rs.14,800/-.
13. The Deputy Commissioner also made a fifth classification in respect of the trees other than the four categories i.e., other than coconut, areca nut, mango and fruit bearing trees, as a separate category and concluded that they would be entitled to the value determined by the Government, plus an ex gratia amount of 10%. Obviously, this fifth category would not be applicable to a -9- NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 fruit bearing tree and can only relate to trees other than those bearing fruit. Thus, it is clear that in respect of fruit bearing trees, the Deputy Commissioner categorically stated that each tree would have to be paid a compensation of Rs.14,800/-.
14. Having regard to the stand taken by the Company in its objections, it is clear that this order of the Deputy Commissioner binds the Company, and the Company cannot go beyond this order.
15. The District Judge, in the impugned order, however, has proceeded to come to the conclusion that the compensation determined by the Deputy Commissioner should not be adopted and, on the other hand, the guidelines issued by the Department of Horticulture produced as Exhibit R-11 by the Company ought to be the manner in which the value of the trees were to be assessed. The District Judge has come to the conclusion that Exhibit R-11 was a scientific method to assess the compensation and has arrived at the conclusion that each
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 pomegranate tree would earn an annual income Rs.511.45, and, out of this, the average annual cultivation cost of Rs.166.15 ought to be deducted and the value of the tree would have to be assessed at Rs.345.30, which, in turn, should be multiplied by a factor of "10" as per the decisions of this Court and has ultimately calculated the value of the tree at Rs.3,712/- for each pomegranate tree.
16. The learned counsel for the landowner submitted that this method adopted by the District Judge was incorrect, having regard to the compensation already determined by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the very Project that was executed by the Company. He submitted that the District Judge ought not to have entered into the field of assessing the compensation for a tree when the Deputy Commissioner had already undertaken that exercise and this assessment was also accepted by the Company.
17. The learned counsel for the Company, though admitted that the compensation determined by the Deputy
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 Commissioner was binding on the Company, sought to further contend that the classification of a pomegranate tree as a fruit bearing tree and determining compensation of Rs.14,800/- would not be correct since the Deputy Commissioner had made a fifth category of other trees, for which only the Government value would have to be adopted and ex gratia of 10% was to be paid.
18. As already extracted above, the Deputy Commissioner's order categorically assessed the compensation in respect of five categories of trees. One category of trees is specifically enumerated to include fruit bearing trees and a sum of Rs.14,800/- was also fixed as compensation. Once the Deputy Commissioner had fixed the value of a fruit bearing tree, the question of adopting another category (i.e., trees other than the fruit bearing trees), and the three other categories mentioned at clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) would not arise.
19. The learned counsel for the Company sought to contend that the landowner himself did not state that they
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 were fruit bearing trees and, therefore, the application of the Deputy Commissioner's compensation for a fruit bearing tree cannot be accepted.
20. The learned counsel submits that the landowner himself admitted that only 100 trees were fruit yielding and that the other 200 were plants and, therefore, the application of the Deputy Commissioner's assessment cannot be made.
21. It is to be stated here that the Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of all the notifications and the Government Orders in relation to fixing the value of a tree, determined the value of each fruit bearing tree as Rs.14,800/-. The Deputy Commissioner did not make any distinction of a tree which was yet to bear fruits, and a tree which was already bearing fruits. As long as the tree was a fruit bearing tree and ultimately yielded fruits, it will have to be considered as a fruit bearing tree.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021
22. The argument of the learned counsel also cannot be accepted since the notice issued by the Company itself indicated that they were pomegranate trees. The fact that the notice made a distinction when it came to a small coconut tree (i.e., a coconut tree which is yet to yield coconuts) and a regular coconut tree, but yet, did not make any such distinction while describing the pomegranate trees would, by itself, demonstrate that the Company itself had admitted that there were 250 pomegranate trees. Once the notice by the Company has a clear indication that there were 250 pomegranate trees, the Company would be estopped from contending the contrary.
23. It may also be pertinent to state here that the Company did not raise any contention in its objections that the pomegranate trees found on the land were only saplings and were not fruit bearing. No suggestion was also made to the landowner that they were only saplings and were not yielding any fruit. In light of this
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 observation, the arguments of the Company cannot be accepted.
24. As a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled for compensation as determined by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 06.08.2015, which is produced at Annexure-C to the landowner's writ petition (as extracted above).
25. The argument of the landowner that there were 350 trees and not 250 cannot be accepted since there is admittedly no material to indicate that there were 350 pomegranate trees.
26. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to the following sum as compensation in respect of the Pomegranate trees which were cut and removed, i.e., 250 Pomegranate Trees x Rs.14,800/- = Rs.37,00,000/-.
27. Since the petitioner has accepted the compensation and has confined his petition only to pomegranate trees, it will not be necessary to consider the claim in respect of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20043 WP No. 17119 of 2021 C/W WP No. 14116 of 2021 the coconut trees or the neem trees or mango trees, as mentioned in the notice.
28. The sum of Rs.37,00,000/- as calculated above shall be made over the petitioner after deducting the amounts paid, if any, including the ex gratia amount that has been paid, and the remaining amount should be paid along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the notice till the date of the payment.
29. The writ petitions filed by the Company as well as land owner are accordingly disposed of.
30. The amount in deposit shall be made out to the landowner i.e., the petitioner in WP No.17119 of 2021.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58