Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Ameensab on 16 July, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.31093/2013 &
WRIT PETITION NO.31094/2013 (GM-KEB)
IN W.P.NO.31093/2013
BETWEEN:
1. The Executive Engineer, KPTCL,
Large Work Division,
R. Hanumanthappa Building,
P.B. Road,
Davanagere - 577 001.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Large Work Division,
KPTCL (BESCOM),
Near KSRTC Depot Road,
Chitradurga - 577 501.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B. Rudra Gowda,Adv.)
AND:
Ameensab, S/o. Jaleel Sab,
Aged about 56 years,
R/o. Gowripura, Nayakanahatti Hobli,
Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District - 572 147.
.. RESPONDENT
2
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the portion of
the order dated 23.11.2012 passed in Misc.43/2012 vide
Annexure-A of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC,
Chitradurga in awarding `48,000/- for 4 coconut trees.
IN W.P.NO.31094/2013
BETWEEN:
1. The Executive Engineer, KPTCL,
Large Work Division,
R. Hanumanthappa Building,
P.B. Road,
Davanagere - 577 001.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Large Work Division,
KPTCL (BESCOM),
Near KSRTC Depot Road,
Chitradurga - 577 501.
...PETITIONERS
(By Sri B. Rudra Gowda,Adv.)
AND:
Koppalada Rudraiah,
S/o. Thippeswamy,
Since dead by his L.Rs.
(a) Shanthaveeramma,
W/o. Koppalada Rudraiah,
Aged about 76 years.
(b) Gowramma,
D/o. Koppalada Rudraiah,
Aged about 53 years.
3
(c) Rajanna @ Basavaraja,
S/o. Koppalada Rudraiah,
Aged about 51 years.
(d) Sharanappa,
S/o. Koppalada Rudraiah,
Aged about 37 years.
All are agriculturists,
R/o. N. Gowripura Village,
Nayakanahatti Hobli,
Challakere Taluk,
Chitradurga District - 572 147.
...RESPONDENTS
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash that portion of
the order dated 23.11.2012 passed in Misc.11/2012 vide
Annexure-A of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC,
Chitradurga in awarding `36,000/- for three coconut trees.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER
Respondents filed claim petitions under S.16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, against the petitioners, in the Court of District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, to direct payment of compensation due to the drawing of the electrical line on their lands situated at Gowripura Village, Nayakanahatti Hobli, Challakere Taluk, by stating, that while drawing of the line, they lost crops and trees and 4 that only nominal sum was paid. The petitioners, who were the respondents in the Misc.Nos.11 and 43 of 2012 on the file of the District Judge, Chitradurga, filed objection statements and stated that the compensation in accordance with law was paid and that the claimants are not entitled to the payment of any further compensation amount and that the petitions being devoid of merit may be dismissed.
2. Evidence was led on behalf of the claimants. By considering the rival contentions and record of the case, learned Additional District Judge passed a Common Judgment dated 23.11.2012. Both the claim petitions were allowed and the determined compensation amount was directed to be paid to the claimants within two months period. Assailing the said common order, these writ petitions have been filed.
3. Sri B. Rudra Gowda, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the learned District Judge has committed grave error in adopting the multiple of 40 years 5 in arriving at market value for the coconut trees as against 8 years multiple applicable in terms of the decision in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. C.P. Sivasankara Menon, 2009 AIR SCW 388. Learned counsel further contended that the learned District Judge is unjustified in not deducting the amount towards cost of cultivation and that the compensation amount determined and ordered to be paid being excessive, impugned order warrants interference.
4. Perused the record. Learned District Judge has determined the compensation amount payable to the respondent in W.P.No.31093/2013 at `58,568/- and to the respondent in W.P.No.31904/2013 at `53,936/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition.
5. In Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. C.P. Sivasankara Menon, 2009 AIR SCW 388, Apex Court while remanding the matter for fresh consideration, referred to a decision in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Livisha etc. etc., 2007 (6) SCC 792. In the said decision, a 6 reference was made to the decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh, 1995 SUPP.(2) SCC 637, wherein, for determination of the compensation amount payable on the basis of the yield from the trees, multiplier 8 was adopted and that the multiplier 18 adopted, was held as erroneous.
6. No doubt, in the instant cases the learned District Judge has applied a higher multiplier, while determining the compensation amount payable to the respondents. However, the amount involved being small and that the respondents being the villagers and agriculturists would be dragged into litigation. They will not be able to cultivate and enjoy their respective properties, over which HT line has been drawn as was done prior to the drawing of the HT line. The value of their respective lands has diminished on account of drawing of HT line by the petitioners. Even though higher multiplier has been applied to determine the compensation amount payable to the claimants/respondents herein, the 7 difference amount being marginal sum, I do not find justification to entertain these writ petitions for further consideration, since the respondents would suffer adverse consequences on account of the continued litigation.
In the result, writ petitions are rejected. However, it is made clear that as and when HT lines are drawn on the properties and the compensation to affected land owners is to be determined by applying yield method, the Court below shall not apply the order impugned herein. The Court below, in future cases, shall apply the ratio of the decision in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. C.P. Sivasankara Menon, 2009 AIR SCW 388 and pass orders.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksj/-