Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayamma vs The Executive Engineer (Ele.) on 23 September, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No.22338 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.51682 OF 2019
IN W.P.NO.22338/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.JAYAMMA,
W/O M.R.THOPEGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR.
SRI KANTHARAJU T.,
S/O LATE THOPEGOWDA @ M.R.THOPEGOWDA,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
R/AT GUNGURUMALE VILLAGE,
2
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI,
TQ. TIPTUR, DIST. TUMAKURU. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL. ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
IN W.P.NO.51682/2019:
BETWEEN:
SMT.JAYAMMA,
W/O M.R.THOPEGOWDA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR.
SRI KANTHARAJU T.,
S/O LATE THOPEGOWDA @ M.R.THOPEGOWDA,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
R/AT GUNGURUMALE VILLAGE,
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI,
TQ. TIPTUR, DIST. TUMAKURU - 572 101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Padma S.Uttur, learned counsel for petitioners and and Sri.Chandrashekar P.Patil, learned counsel for respondent have appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the parties is referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Miscellaneous Case No.10108/2014 before V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur and sought for enhanced compensation.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.102/3 situated at Gungurumale Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk. The KPTCL 4 respondents have drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line from Nonavinakere to Gungurumale tapping point which passes through the petitioner's garden land. They have cut and removed various fruit bearing trees and crops.
It is stated that the compensation awarded is very meager and the Authority has not adopted capitalization method and adopted an unscientific method and the compensation paid is not in accordance with the market rate of the relevant year.
It is also stated that since there is a drawing up of Electricity Transmission Line over her land there is diminution of value of the land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.
After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn 220/110 K.V Electric Transmission Line and which passes through the petitioner's land. The compensation 5 awarded by the Authority is based on the report of the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture. Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
The petitioner - Jayamma was examined as PW-1 and produced 09 documents which were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-9. One D.H.Venkatesh, was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order dated 05.10.2018 awarded compensation of Rs.48,846/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Six only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of drawing electricity high-tension wire till the date of recovery.
It is this order which is challenged in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
6
4. Smt.Padma S.Uttur, learned counsel submits that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the KPTCL have paid the compensation based on the report of the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department. He has assessed the compensation to be paid on the formula and guidance issued by the Government of Karnataka from time to time. The compensation paid was just and proper. Hence, interfering with the same by further enhancing the compensation has resulted in causing great prejudice to the interest and right of the Authority.
Next, she submitted that the Trial court has failed to appreciate the price list issued by the APMC Tumkur as per Ex.P.9. The price of the coconut is Rs.6/- but the Trial Court has considered at Rs.10/-.
A further submission is made that the compensation of Rs.500/- per year per tree for the income of coconut, husk, flesh, shell and leaves is without any basis. 7
Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the Trial Court has adopted 10 multiplier instead of 8. Hence the same is liable to be modified.
Learned counsel vehemently contended that the award of 8% interest is on a higher side. Hence the same is liable to be reduced.
Lastly, she submitted that viewed from any angle, the order is not just and proper. Accordingly, she prayed that the same requires modification.
5. Sri.Chandrashekar P.Patil, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has urged several contentions and he has also filed writ petition seeking enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, he submits that appropriate order may be passed.
6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners and respondent and perused the Annexures with care.
8
7. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires modification?
The facts are not in dispute. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court and it could be seen from the order, learned Judge in extenso referred to the material on record and has awarded compensation in accordance with law. The compensation awarded is just and proper. Hence in my opinion, the award of compensation awarded is just and proper and the same does not require any interference.
Resultantly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN