Partly allowed

The Executive Engineer( Ele) v. K R Manjegowda

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2022WP/22340/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court partly allowed writ petitions seeking enhancement of compensation for land acquisition by KPTCL. Court modified trial court order, recalculating compensation based on a 30% cost of cultivation deduction precedent and directed payment of balance amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Balance compensation of Rs. 1,78,285 with 6% interest directed to be paid to claimant.

The Executive Engineer( Ele) Vs K R Manjegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.22340 OF 2019 (GM-KEB) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.803 OF 2020

¶8

IN W.P.No.22340/2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER( ELE) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELE.) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV, K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 101 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

K.R.MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O K. HOSURU VILLAGE KANATHUR POST, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 201 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶16

….RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶20

IN W.P.No.803/2020

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SRI.K.R.MANJEGOWDA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O K. HOSURU VILLAGE KANATHUR POST, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 101.

¶23

.....PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND :

¶26

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER( ELE) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101

¶27

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELE.) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV, K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101

¶28

….RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶31

¶32

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Smt. Padma S.Uttur learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel for

¶35

respondent have appeared in person.

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the status of parties is referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶37

The petitioner filed a petition in Civil Misc.No.10096/2014 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.

¶38

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.156/1P2 situated at K.Mavinahalli Village, Dabeghatta Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk. The KPTCL has drawn 220/110 KV Electric Transmission Line from Nonavinakere to Gungurumale Tapping Point and the same

¶39

¶40

passed through petitioner's land. It is said that they have cut and removed fruit bearing trees and crops.

¶41

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.

¶42

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 at 15% per annum.

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

compensation paid is just and proper. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶46

The petitioner-K.R.Manjegowda was examined as PW-1 and produced 10 documents which were marked as Ex.P-1 to P-10. One D.H.Venkatesh was examined as RW-1 and no documents were produced.

¶47

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order dated 14.03.2018 awarded compensation of Rs.3,85,000/(Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Five Thousand only) less compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization.

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

of the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture

¶52

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.

¶53

Next, she submitted that the aspect regarding cost of cultivation has not been properly considered by the Trial Court.

¶54

It is further submitted that this Court in various judgments held that the cost of cultivation should be calculated at 30%. Hence, the same needs interference.

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

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 award of compensation requires modification and therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.

¶58

Sri. Chandrashekar 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.

¶59

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the parties and perused the Annexures with care.

¶60

The short question which arises for

¶61

consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires modification?

¶62

¶63

Smt. Padma S.Uttur, learned counsel in presenting her argument on behalf of authority drew attention to the decision reported in THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER V. DODDAKKA

¶64

- ILR 2015 KAR 677.

¶65

I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The award of amount in respect of Coconut, Teak and Neem Trees, requires modification. In view of DODDAKKA’s case, the cost of cultivation should be deducted at 30%.

¶66

If we deduct 30% of cost of cultivation, the calculation will be as under:

¶67

CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:

¶68

SL.NO.	NO. OF TREES	YIELD	PRICE
			(Rs.)
1.	17	180	10/-

¶69

180 X 10 X 10 = 18,000/-

¶70

30% Cost of Cultivation=18,000x30%/100 = 5,400/-

¶71

18,000 - 5,400 = Rs.12,600/- per tree

¶72

¶73

12,600 x 17 = Rs.2,14,200/- (for 17 Coconut trees).

¶74

Calculation for Husk

¶75

500x17= 85,000/-

¶76

30% Cost of Cultivation = 85,000x 30/100= 25,500

¶77

85,000-25,000= 59,500/-

¶78

Total compensation for Coconut is Rs.2,14,200/- + 59,500/- = Rs.2,73,700/-

¶79

CALCULATION OF TEAK TREES:

¶80

The Trial Court has awarded Rs.20,000/- per tree.

¶81

The same has to be modified as Rs.25,000/- per tree.

¶82

There are 5 Teak Trees: 25,000x5= Rs.1,25,000/-

¶83

CALCULATION OF NEEM TREES:

¶84

The Trial Court has awarded Rs.6,000/- per tree. The same has to modified as Rs.13,000/- per tree.

¶85

There are 5 neem trees: 13,000x5= Rs.65,000/-

¶86

¶87

Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:

¶88

Coconut Trees - Rs. 2,73,700/2. Teak Trees - Rs. 1,25,000/3. Neem Trees - Rs. 65,000/------------------Total compensation = Rs. 4,63,700/-------------------

¶89

Taking into consideration the above calculation, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,63,700/(Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred only).

¶90

Learned counsel Smt. Padma S. Uttur , submits that the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.2,85,415/(Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifteen only) while drawing up of the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,78,285/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Five only) is to be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% from the date petition till realization.

¶91

¶92

In the result, the both the Writ Petitions are partly allowed . The Order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10096/2014 is modified. The claimant is entitled for balance compensation of Rs.1,78,285/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Five only). The same is to be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% from the date petition till realization.

¶93

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.

¶94

The Trial court is directed to calculate the same and pay the balance amount to the claimant. If there is any excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the Authorities.

¶95

Sd/-

¶96

JUDGE

¶97

TKN

The Executive Engineer( Ele) v. K R Manjegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer( Ele) v. K R Manjegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Gangamma Vs Shri D Thammanna

Mr K Narasimha Swamy Vs Mr K S K Prabhath

Sri H a Ravikumar Vs Smt. Bhagyamma

Hanmant S/O Venkappa Suryanaik Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Basawwa @ Ratnawwa W/Ol Adiveppa Shiggavi Vs Neelawwa W/O. Maritammppa Halannavar

Sri. Basappa S/O Krishnappa Halagatti Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer