Karnataka High Court
Jayamma vs Karnataka Power Transmission on 7 June, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.39593/2016 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN
Jayamma
W/o. Mudlappa
Aged about 68 years
R/o. Kasturirangappanahalli Hobli
Hiriyur Taluk
Chitradurga District-577501 ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Spoorthy Hegde. N, Advocate)
AND
1. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited, Bengaluru
Represented by the Managing Director,
KPTCL, Corporate Office, Kauvery Bhavan,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Executive Engineer
KPTCL, Bruhath Kamagari Division
Tumkur-572102
3. Assistant Executive Engineer
KPTCL, Bruhath Kamagari Division
Tumkur-572102 ...Respondents
(by Smt. Sumangala.I.Simimath, Advocate for
Sri. Gurudev.I.Gachchinamath, Advocate)
2
This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227
of the constitution of India praying to modify the judgment
and award which are Annexure-A & B respectively passed
by the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at
Chitradurga in Civil Misc.131/2013 dated:04.03.2015 by
enhancing the compensation which is just and reasonable.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
in 'B' group, this day the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 04.03.2015 made in Civil Miscellaneous No.131/2013 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge. Chitradurga allowing the petition in part filed under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 awarding a compensation of Rs.1,60,840/- with 8% interest per Annum to the petitioner towards the compensation/ damages and directed the respondent to deposit the compensation within a period of two months. On such deposit the entire compensation and interest shall be released to the petitioner.
3
2. The respondent/KPTCL has not filed any writ petition before this Court against the order dated 04.03.2015 made in Civil Miscellaneous No. 131/2013 FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Sy. No. 7/3A measuring 24 Acres 10 Guntas at Bagganadu Kaval, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk. Respondent have drawn 220 KV High Tension circuit electric lines in the petitioner's land including corridor land and 9 meters length both left and right side from the centre point for drawing electricity line.
4. It was further contended that at the time of drawing line the respondent have cut down 30 -Tamarind tree of 15 years, 9- Mango of 10 years, 10- Neem of 11 years, 10- Teak trees of 12 years, 10-Honge of 11 years and 6- Neelagiri trees of 12 years and Banana plants.
Therefore, he filed petition under Section 16(3) Indian 4 Telegraph Act, 1885 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga for compensation.
5. The respondents have filed objections denying the allegations made and contended that in the year 2013 they have installed High Tension line tower over 4.32 guntas land of the petitioner and paid Rs.2,89,110/- towards loss of crop and removing 15 Tamarind Trees of 15 years of age, 15 coconut trees of 2 years, 4 jali trees of 15 years age, 150 banana plants, 5 neem trees of 15 years age, one mango tree of 5 years age, 1 tapase tree and settled the full and final settlement. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any further compensation and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned Additional District Judge based on the pleadings of the parties, framed two points for consideration.
"(1) Whether petitioner is entitle for damages/compensation under the head decrease of the value of the land in view 5 of the installation of electricity wire and destruction trees?
(2) If petitioner is entitle for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation?"
7. In order to establish the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is examined as PW1 and produced documents at Exhibit -P1 to P5. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have produced the document marked as Ex.R1.
8. The learned Civil Judge after considering both oral and documentary evidence has held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation/damages under the head of the decrease of value of the land in view of installation of electricity and while entitling the quantum of compensation accordingly by the impugned order has awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,840/- with current and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum for compensation. Hence, present writ petition is filed for enhancement. 6
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
10. Sri. S.H. Nagaraja learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,60,840/- with 8% is on the lower side and the petitioner is entitled for further enhancement. He would further contend that the Tribunal has erred in awarding the only 30% depreciate of the land value, completely ignoring the depreciation to its entire life of the land and the compensation has to be calculated under right to fair compensation and transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. He would further contend that the trees cut and moved by the respondents also depicts in the memo which is undisputed and the trial court has failed to award any compensation towards the trees destroyed by the 7 respondents. Therefore, he sought for further compensation by modifying the impugned order passed by the trial court.
11. Per contra, Smt. Sumangala, S. Simimath for Sri. Gurudev I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the respondents have already paid compensation in respect of High Tension Line drawn over the land of the petitioner towards loss of crop and the trees as full and final settlement. The trial court considering the entire material on record has passed the impugned order, which is just and proper. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner who is the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 7/3(A) totally measuring 24 Acres 10 Guntas is at Bagganadu Kaval, J.G. Halli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk and the respondents have 8 installed the HT power line of 220 KV electricity line in the petitioner's land to the extent of 4.32 Guntas. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner has suffered loss of trees and also Banana crop in the land of one Acre owned by the petitioner and during the installation of the HT Line, respondents have damaged the crop and cut and removed so many trees.
13. It is the specific case of the respondents that when the respondents installed the power line in the year 2013, they have paid compensation of Rs. 2,89,110/- towards damages of crops and removal of trees as full and final settlement. The trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the documents produced by respondent No.2 and 3 at Ex. R-1 shows that the respondents have installed 220 KV wire and a tower in/over 40.32 guntas by destroying 15 tamarind, 5 honge, 9 neem, 15 coconut, one nugge trees and 160 banana plants and paid a sum of 9 Rs.2,89,110/- as compensation towards damages caused to the land and the trees of the petitioner by laying high power line and tower. Though the respondents have not disputed the documents marked at Ex.P1 to P5, the trial Court further recorded a finding that the petitioner has not produced any documents about the age and quantity of the fruit/coconut procured in the tamarind/coconut trees. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the increase in the compensation with respect to the coconut/mango/ tamarind trees and banana plants.
14. The trial court taking in to consideration the installation of HT line on the land of the petitioner, has specifically recorded a finding that it is an undisputed fact even after installation of high tension line, the ownership and possession of the petitioner over the space which high tension line is installed, is not affected. However, in view of the installation of high power line, nature of crops to be grown is affected and value of the land is considerably 10 decreased and considering the land utilized and trees destroyed has awarded Rs.3,50,000/- per Acre relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Bangalore and others v/s. A.P. Manoharachar reported in 2015(1) KCCR 245 and on determination of the market value, the land of Kasturirangappanahalli village as per the valuation report, is Rs.3,50,000/-. Extent of the land over which the respondents laid high tension line, tower including corridor 40.32 guntas:
Rs.3,50,000/- 1,05,000/- 2,625/- x 40.32 = Rs.1,05,840/-
30% 40 guntas Also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards damage suffered in view of the installation of the power. In all, the learned Judge has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,60,840/-, in addition to the compensation amount already paid by the respondents a sum of Rs. 2,89,220/-. While passing the impugned order, the learned Judge has awarded current and future interest of 8% per annum towards compensation but no date is fixed from which date the 11 petitioner is entitled to 8% interest. Therefore, the impugned payment of interest has to be modified.
15. In view of the provisions of Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1883, the petitioner is entitled to an interest from the date of determination of the value made i.e., 16.05.2013 as submitted by the learned counsel to the parties, till payment.
16. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,840/- is confirmed. Only the interest of 8% has to be fixed. The current and future interest at the rate of 8% per annum payable to the petitioner by the respondent from 16.05.2013 towards compensation till payment.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVK