Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Power Transmission vs B R Venaktesh Bhatta on 21 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914
WP No. 11799 of 2019
C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 11799 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 14829 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
IN WP No. 11799/2019
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU 09.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL, SHIVAMOGGA.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally (BY SMT PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE)
signed by C AND:
HONNUR
SAB
1. B R VENAKTESH BHATTA
Location:
DEAD BY LRS,
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA (a). LALITAMBA,
W/O. LATE. VENKATESH BHATTA,
AGE 74 YEARS,
DEAD BY LRS,
(RESPONDENTS NO.1(b), 1(c)
AND RESPONDENT NO.2 ARE THE
LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 1(a)
AND THEY ARE ALREADY ON RECORD)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914
WP No. 11799 of 2019
C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
(b). B V CHINDAMBAR BHAT,
S/O. LATE. VENKATESH BHAT,
AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. CH-9,
SARVARTHA, 5TH CROSS,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.
(c). B.V.RAMASWAMY,
S/O LATE VENKATESH BHAT,
AGED 45 YEARS,
R/O KOPPALU, SANKADA HOLE POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK - 577432.
3. K V DATTAMURTHY
S/O. B R VENKATESHA BHATTA,
MAJOR, R/O. YEDEHALLI VILLAGE,
SANKADAHOLE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K N MAHABALESHWAR RAO, ADV. R1(B,C) & R2,
R1(A) IS DECEASED AS PER CAUSE TITLE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS.QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE SHIMOGA IN CIVIL MISC.NO.9/2002, DATED
24th NOVEMBER 2018 AS PER ANNX-K.
IN WP NO. 14829/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B V CHIDAMBAR BHAT
S/O LATE VENKATESHA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O NO.CH-9,SARVARTHA,
5TH CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
SHIMOGA, PIN CODE:577 432.
2. SRI B V RAMASWAMY,
S/O LATE VENKATESHA BHAT,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914
WP No. 11799 of 2019
C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O KOPPALU,
SANKADA HOLE POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
PIN CODE:577 432.
3. SRI B V DATTAMURTHY,
S/O LATE VENKATESHA BHAT,
R/O YEDEHALLI VILLAGE,
SANKADAHOLE POST,
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
PIN CODE:577 432
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K N MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL,SHIVAMOGGA,
PIN CODE:577 432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY
THE ORDER DTD 24.11.2018 IN NO.CIVIL MISC.9/2002,
ANNX-F ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIMOGA
AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT RS.11,28,000/- AS
COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS WITH INTEREST @18%
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914
WP No. 11799 of 2019
C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
1. These two writ petitions are taken up together for consideration. W.P.No.11799/2019 is filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and W.P.No.14829/2019 is filed by the owners of the property on whose property high tension wire is laid by the Corporation.
2. In both the petitions, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 24.11.2018 passed in Civil Misc. No.9/2002 on the file of Principal District Judge, Shivamogga. In terms of the said order, the trial Court directed the Corporation to pay Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioners along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date when the petitioners vacate their house till the actual payment.
3. The owners of the property are referred to as 'petitioners' and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is referred to as 'Corporation'.
4. The petitioners are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation on the premise that compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- is on lower side. The -5- NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 Corporation is before this Court on the premise that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation as they have constructed the building under the high tension wire, which was in existence prior to construction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the matter was remanded on earlier occasion on a petition filed by the Corporation. While remanding the matter in terms of order dated 19.03.2012 in W.P.Nos.28602/2010 and 31142/2010 (Annexure-G), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation and the matter was remitted to quantify the compensation payable with a specific finding that the structure owned by the petitioners exists below the high tension wire.
6. Learned counsel would further contend that the engineer was appointed to determine the valuation of the structure. He made spot inspection and submitted a report and as per report of the engineer, the valuation of the building is Rs.13,78,000/-. The Corporation did not file objections to the said report. The report is accepted. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 However, the Court rejected the claim to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- on the premise that the petitioners themselves have claimed only Rs.11,00,000/-. The trial Court again has reduced the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- on the premise that there is a depreciation in the value of the building.
7. Learned counsel would contend that the depreciation in case has taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court, should not be the ground for reducing the compensation payable. Hence, he would urge that as per the valuation determined by the engineer, compensation has to be awarded.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would contend that in the year 1958, there was already a high tension line for 110 KW electricity supply. Knowing fully well that there is a high tension line, the petitioners have constructed the building, which they were not supposed to. Thereafter, in the year 1998, over the same structure, without widening the corridor, a 220 KW high tension line is laid over the property of the petitioners and to ensure the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 safety of the petitioners, notice is issued to the petitioners to vacate the premises.
9. Learned counsel for the Corporation would contend that the petitioners have constructed the structure below the high tension line at their own risk and as such they are not entitled to any compensation. It is her further claim that no other persons have made claim seeking compensation because of increase in the capacity of the high tension wire. Thus, she would urge that award of Rs.4,00,000/- by the trial Court itself is erroneous.
10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
11. Admitted factual position is, this matter was remanded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court to the trial Court in terms of the order dated 19.03.2012. The relevant portion of the operative portion would read as under:
"Both the petitioners as well as the respondents shall appear before the learned District Judge on 16th of June 2012. The scope of remand is only to determine the damages and it is not open for the petitioners to contend that no line is drawn in the land belonging to the respondents."-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
12. The scope of remand as noted above is crystal clear. This Court has remanded the matter to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners. There is no dispute that the structure belonging to the petitioners lies below the high tension line. The Corporation itself has issued a notice to the petitioners to vacate the premises on the ground that the high tension line carrying 220 KW of electricity poses danger to the inmates of the structure who are residing there. This itself would clearly demonstrate that high tension wire is running over the property of the petitioners. As already noticed, there is a direction to determine the compensation.
13. To ascertain the compensation payable to the structure of the petitioners, the Commissioner was appointed. He has submitted a report. The report would disclose that value of the property is Rs.13,78,000/-. The trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on the premise that there has to be depreciation in the value of the structure.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
14. It is to be noticed that this matter is pending since 2001. The matter reached this Court on two occasions earlier and the matter was remanded. Because of the pendency of the petition, the compensation amount not yet determined. The depreciation in value of the structure during the pendency of the petition cannot be held against the petitioners to the benefit of the respondent/Corporation. The delay is not on account of the petitioners' conduct. The delay is on account of huge pendency of cases before the Court.
15. Under these circumstances, the trial Court is not justified in reducing the value of the structure on the premise that there is a depreciation during the pendency of the proceedings.
16. It is also noticed that the notice is issued to vacate the premises. In that event, the petitioners would not be in a position to use the land for the purpose of residential house and it has to be used for cultivating the crop and even for cultivation, there are certain restrictions because of the high tension wire running above the property
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, invariably there will be diminution in the value of the property.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have led evidence to demonstrate the diminution in the value of the property.
18. It is noticed that in terms of the order dated 17.07.2004, the Court Commissioner appointed to evaluate the property. Thereafter, the Court Commissioner has visited the property and submitted the report which is dated 16.09.2004. The report is not formally marked but nevertheless, this is a piece of evidence under Order 26 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no need to formally mark the report. Party who has not accepted the report is entitled to file an objection and they can demonstrate the report to be erroneous either by cross examining the Court Commissioner or by leading any evidence to substantiate the objection filed to the report of the Court Commissioner.
19. It is noticed that neither the petitioners nor the respondents of this petition have filed objection to the report
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 of the Commissioner. In other words, both the parties have accepted the report of the Commissioner.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that there are over writings in handwriting in the report of the Commissioner on the valuation initially typed and later the valuation was changed by incorporating different figures in handwriting. If this is the contention of the respondents that these changes are made by the petitioner, then, the respondent was required to file statement of objection to the report and was required to cross examine the Commissioner in this behalf. No such step was taken by the respondent. In the writ petition also, there is no ground raised stating that the figures mentioned in the report are altered by the petitioner.
21. This Court has also calculated the difference of amount in the figures mentioned in the handwriting and the figures typed in the report. The difference would come to ₹97,000/- and odd. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the report is not challenged in the manner known to law and there are no materials to disbelieve the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 report of the Commissioner, when such a plea is not raised in the petition.
22. It is noticed that the trial Court has assigned two reasons not to award the compensation as mentioned in the report of the Commissioner;
a) the petitioner himself has claimed Rs.11,28,000/- as the compensation whereas, the report would indicate that the value of the property is Rs.13,78,000/-.
b) The petitioner has used the premises for several years despite issuance of notice to vacate the premises and as such, there is depreciation in the value of the property.
23. As far as the first reason assigned by the trial Court relating to the lesser claim made in the petition compared to the valuation shown in the report, the law is well settled. When it comes to the question of determining the compensation, the Court is required to award just compensation and even if the claim made in the application or the petition is less than the just compensation. If the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 Court comes to the conclusion that the 'just compensation' is higher than the compensation claimed, the Court's power to award higher compensation if it is 'just compensation' is not taken away.
24. As far as the second reason assigned by the trial Court to reduce the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- by taking into depreciation is concerned, the trial Court was in error in reducing the compensation by holding that the property value has depreciated. It is to be noticed that the Court Commissioner himself has taken into account the depreciation. Thus, further depreciation is not justified. The trial Court clearly fell in error in saying that all these years the petitioner has been using the premises. It is relevant to note that the matter is pending before the Court and the matter is not yet adjudicated. The depreciation in the value of the property, value of the structure during the pendency of this suit cannot be a ground to reduce the compensation.
25. As far as the contention of the respondent that the owners have put the structure after 1958 i.e. after the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 high tension wire was laid is concerned, it is to be noticed that no provision of law is pointed out to say that the structure which the petitioner has put-up is prohibited under law. Maybe, there are provisions which would say that a structure beyond certain height is impermissible. It is not the case of the respondent that the owners have violated the said regulation. This being the position, even if it is assumed that the structures have come up after 1958 that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation.
26. It is further noticed that when the old 110 KW high tension wire was laid in the year 1956, it occupied a corridor measuring 4.17x4.17 metres, totaling 17.39 square metres over the land of the petitioners. Newly laid line covered 8.71x 8.71 metres, totaling 75.86 square metres as can be seen from the report, which is marked at Annexure- M. Thus, it appears that the expansion in the width of the corridor resulted in the petitioner structure coming under the high tension wire. Under these circumstances, the construction which is made prior to laying of 220 Kw wire
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 cannot be said to be a construction in violation of the provisions of law regulating the construction below the high tension wire.
27. What is required to be noticed is that the respondents have issued a notice directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. In other words, the petitioners cannot use the premises as the residential house at all. Under these circumstances, the valuation arrived at by the PWD engineer has to be accepted as there is no challenge to the said report. The petitioners are entitled to the compensation as determined by the Court Commissioner/PWD Engineer.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of A.M. Lingaraju vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., in W.P. No.58212 of 2015 to contend that this Court has declined to award compensation in respect of the areca nut trees raised under the high tension wire and it has urged that since the construction has come up after the high tension wire was laid over the property of the petitioners, petitioners are not entitled to compensation.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
29. In the above said case, the Court has remitted the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give a finding as to whether the areca nut plants were planted after the high tension wire laid or not. That judgment does not come to the aid of the respondent Corporation as there is a clear prohibition to plant the areca nut or coconut trees under the high tension wire. In addition to that, it is already noticed that the width of the corridor of the high tension wire for 110 Kw load was much smaller than the corridor for 220 Kw as noticed from the report of the Commissioner and it is only after 220 Kw high tension wire was laid over the property of the petitioner, the petitioners structure came under the corridor of the 220 Kw high tension wire. Under these circumstances also, the contention that the petitioners are not entitled to the compensation for the structure beneath the high tension wire is not tenable.
30. As far as interest on compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the division bench of this Court in the case of D. Suresh
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 Kumar And Another, vs KPTCL1, to contend that 12% interest is to be awarded from the date of laying the high tension wire.
31. Learned counsel for the Corporation would place reliance on the judgment in the case of Executive Engineer, KPTCL and Another vs. Doddakka2 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to only 6% interest. It is to be noticed that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D. Suresh Kumar, supra has awarded 12% interest from the date of laying the high tension wire whereas, the Division Bench has upheld the order in Doddakka's case, supra awarding 6% interest. In both the cases, there is no discussion as to on what basis the interest rate of interest is fixed.
32. Considering the fact that the petition is pending since the year 2002 and also considering the fact that the high tension wire was upgraded to 220 Kw in the year 1998, this Court is of the view that interest at the rate of 8% from 1 AIROnline 2021, Kar 318 2 2014(4) AKR 257
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914 WP No. 11799 of 2019 C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019 the date of the petition till the date of payment, would be reasonable. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the authority to vacate the premises and as soon as such an undertaking is filed, the Corporation shall pay the compensation awarded by this Court.
33. Hence the following;
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition No.14829/2019 is allowed.
ii) The order dated 24.11.2018 in Civil Misc.
No.9/2002, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Shivamogga is modified.
iii) Petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.13,78,000/-.
iv) Petitioners are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7914
WP No. 11799 of 2019
C/W WP No. 14829 of 2019
v) Consequently, the Writ Petition
No.11799/2019 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30