Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer Ele vs Smt Rangamma on 9 March, 2022
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION NO. 5332 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L,
KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU CITY,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 102.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
NO.4, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
K.P.T.C.L, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU CITY,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 102.
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RANGAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH,
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 227.
..RESPONDENT
W.P. No. 5332/2022
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH ANNEXURE-C, DATED 25/05/2021 PASSED IN
CIVIL MISC. NO.158/2013 ON THE FILE OF 5TH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TIPTUR
BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present respondent as a claimant in Civil Misc.No.158/2013 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court') filed under Section 19 of Indian Electricity Act read with Section 13 of Indian Telegraphic Act, had claimed compensation with interest thereupon on the ground that the present petitioners had drawn 110/11 KV electricity W.P. No. 5332/2022 3 transmission line in her agricultural land bearing Survey No.196 measuring 4 acres and Survey No.207 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Soolekere village, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District.
She also contended that the petitioners herein had used the land of 22 meters width and have cut and removed 49 Coconut trees aged about 13 years, 03 Tamarind trees aged about 20 years, 19 Neem trees aged about 25 years, 1 Arali tree aged about 25 years, 03 Honge trees aged about 25 years, 01 Hippe tree aged about 20 years, 39 Bamboo aged about 20 years and 02 Kaggali trees aged about 20 years. Despite the same, she was awarded with the compensation of a sum of `2,29,691/- by the present petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, she had sought for enhancement of the said compensation. W.P. No. 5332/2022 4
2. The trial Court after hearing both the side and recording the evidence before it, awarded the compensation in the following manner:
1. For 49 coconut trees `6,12,500/-
2. For 9 Neem trees of 18 years old `40,500/-
3. For 10 Neem trees of 8 years old `20,000/-
4. For 3 Honge trees `7,500/-
5. For 39 Bamboo Sele `19,500/-
Total `7,00,000/-
`7,00
After deducting the amount of `2,12,388/- which was said to have already been granted, the trial Court held that the petitioner before it was entitled for enhanced compensation of a sum of `4,87,612/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of recovery. Challenging the same, the respondents in the trial Court have filed the present Writ Petition.W.P. No. 5332/2022
5
3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein is that while calculating the compensation towards fruit bearing trees, which is a coconut tree in the instant case, the trial Court ought to have deducted 30% towards the cost of cultivation.
The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by virtue of the judgment reported in The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and another V/s Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, 30% has to be deducted towards the cost of cultivation, while calculating compensation towards coconut trees. Since the trial Court has not deducted the said cost of cultivation, the petitioners are before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners concedes that with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded to the other trees, he has no grievance.
W.P. No. 5332/20226
4. Though the matter has come up before this Court as a fresh matter to consider the interim prayer, however, the Court thought that the petition itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners was heard extensively, where he reiterated the above points.
In Doddakka's case (supra) at Paragraph No.26, the Hon'ble Apex Court though has observed that the cost of cultivation in respect of fruit bearing trees will be 30%, however in the very same judgment at Paragraph No.27, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a total value of `5/- per coconut [for the relevant year in the said case], after giving margin to the cost incurred for cultivation and other expenses without actually making any arithmetical calculation regarding the yield, price of each coconut and the 30% cost of cultivation.
W.P. No. 5332/20227
5. Even in the case on hand also, the trial Court while calculating the compensation, towards the coconut tree, though it has taken the price of each of the coconut at `10/-, by giving reasons as to why it is taking such price, has also shown that the said arrival of the price is after giving margin of the cost incurred for cultivation. The trial Court though has not arithmetically calculated the price of the coconut prior to deduction towards the cost of cultivation, however before arriving to the price at `10/- per coconut, it has given margin to the cost incurred for cultivation. Therefore, the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court has not considered the cost of cultivation in calculating the price of the coconut and arrived at higher compensation is not accepted. Except this, since the petitioners have no other grievance, I am of W.P. No. 5332/2022 8 the view that, even without ordering the notice to the respondent, the present petition can be disposed of.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE mbb