Karnataka High Court
Sir M J Yallappa vs The Executive Engineer (Ele) on 22 September, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No.22343 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.52859 OF 2019
IN W.P.NO.22343/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
MAJOR WORKS DEVISION
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M.J.YALLAPPA,
S/O LATE JAWARASHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT G.MALLENAHALLI,
GUNGARUMALE POST,
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
IN W.P.NO.52859/2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI M.J.YALLAPPA,
S/O LATE JAWARASHETTI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT G.MALLENAHALLI,
GUNGARUMALE POST,
NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 101. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR WORKS DEVISION
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV
K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD
TUMAKURU TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Smt.Padma S.Uttur., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.Chandrashekar P.Patil., learned counsel for respondent have appeared in person.
2. For the sake of convenience, the status of parties is referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. The petitioner filed a petition in Civil Misc.No.10005/2015 before the 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.101/10B situated at Gungarumale Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk. The KPTCL has drawn 220/110 KV Electric Transmission Line from Nonavinakere to Gungurumale Tapping Point and the same passed through petitioner's land. It is said that they have cut and removed fruit bearing trees and crops. 4
It is stated that the compensation paid 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 Electric Transmission Line over the land, there is diminution of value of the land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation with interest.
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 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. 5
The petitioner - M.J.Yallappa was examined as PW-1 and produced 13 documents which were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-13. 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 17.11.2018 awarded compensation of Rs.71,105/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Five only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition 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.
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 6 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 awarded Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per Neem tree and the same is exorbitant hence it requires modification.
Lastly, she submitted that learned Trial Judge erred in not taking into consideration the vital and key facts that the Authority have already paid the compensation and the petitioner has received the same without any protest nor has he filed any objections before the Horticulture Department regarding assessment of valuation of the trees. Hence, a grave error has committed by enhancing the compensation and the award of 8% interest is totally unsustainable in law. Accordingly, she submitted that 7 award of compensation requires modification and therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.
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.
5. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the parties and perused the Annexures with care.
6. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires modification?
I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The award of amount in respect of Neem Trees, requires modification.
CALCULATION OF NEEM TREES:
The Trial Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per tree. The same has to be modified as Rs.13,000/- per tree. 8
Rs.13,000 X 2 = Rs.26,000/-
The compensation awarded in respect of other trees is unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
1. Coconut Trees - Rs.96,600/-
2. Neem Trees - Rs.26,000/-
3. Jowar crop - Rs. 5,000/-
4. Towards Tower - Rs.15,000/-
-------------------------
Total compensation - Rs.1,42,600/-
-------------------------
Taking into consideration the above calculation, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,42,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred only).
Learned counsel Smt.Padma S.Uttur, submits that the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.60,495/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Five only) while drawing up of the line.
9
Submission is noted. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled for balance compensation of Rs.82,105/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred and Five only) is to be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization.
In the result, both the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The Order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10005/2015 is modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation of Rs.82,105/- (Rupees Eighty Two Thousand One Hundred and Five only) with interest at the rate of 6% from the date petition till realization.
It is needless to observe that the KPTCL Authority shall deposit the balance amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN