Allowed

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt. Gangamma

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024WP/10617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPTCL challenged enhanced compensation awarded for trees removed in drawing a transmission line over land. The High Court found the compensation for coconut and teak trees excessive, reassessed it, and reduced total compensation to Rs.48,450/-, modifying the Trial Court's order.

What did the court decide?

Writ allowed; Trial Court order modified; claimant entitled to Rs.28,482/- balance with 6% interest; KPTCL to deposit within six weeks.

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt. Gangamma — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10617 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SMT. GANGAMMA THEJASKUMAR N W/O.LATE.GUDDAIAH, Location: High PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, Court of Karnataka RESIDING AT MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

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

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioners has

¶20

appeared in person.

¶21

An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 14.06.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner filed a petition in Civil

¶24

Misc.No.10022/2016 before the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.

¶25

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.191/P situated at Muddenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkuru District. The KPTCL has drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶28

from K.B.Cross to Thimmanahalli tapping point, which passes through petitioner's garden land. They have cut and removed fruit bearing trees and destroyed crops.

¶29

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.

¶30

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, they prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶31

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 through the petitioners' land. The compensation awarded by the Authority is based on the report of the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department. Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and produced eight documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P8. One

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶35

Sri.Hanumantharayappa., was examined as RW1 and no documents were produced on behalf of the respondents.

¶36

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Order dated 19.11.2022 awarded compensation of Rs.5,36,982/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶37

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶38

with care.

¶39

The short question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires modification?

¶40

The facts are not in dispute. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The compensation awarded by the Trial Court towards Coconut and Teak trees are on a higher side. The reason is simple. The age of the Coconut and the Teak trees were four years as of the date of the drawing of the transmission line. Hence, the same requires modification. The calculation is as under:

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶42

COCONUT TREES:

¶43

Calculation of compensation for three Coconut Trees aged

¶44

about four years is calculated as under:

¶45

Rs.2,000 X 03 = Rs.6,000/-.

¶46

TEAK TREES:

¶47

Calculation of compensation for twenty-one Teak Trees

¶48

aged about 04 years is calculated as under:

¶49

Rs.2,000 X 21 = Rs.42,000/-.

¶50

The compensation awarded as far as Muthuga Tree

¶51

remains unaltered. Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:

¶52

1.	03 Coconut Trees	Rs.6,000/-
2.	21 Teak Trees	Rs.42,000/-
3.	01 Muthuga Tree	Rs.450/-
	Total Compensation	Rs.48,450/-

¶53

Taking into consideration the above calculation, the

¶54

claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.48,450/(Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty only).

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶57

Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.19,968/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight only) while drawing up of the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.28,482/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Two only) is to be paid to the claimant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶58

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed . The Order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10022/2016 is modified. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.28,482/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Two only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date petition till realization.

¶59

Needless to say that the KPTCL shall deposit the balance amount within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶60

Lastly, counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that pursuant to the interim order, 50% of the award amount has

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:52268 WP No. 10617 of 2023

¶63

already been deposited before the Trial Court. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed.

¶64

Submission is noted. The Trial Court is directed to look into the deposit made by the Authority and 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.

¶65

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶66

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt. Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Smt. Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd. Vs Smt Anasuya S

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd. Vs Sri Basavarajaiah R

M/ S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd. Vs Mr Charles H

M/S Tool Tech Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri M Yogamurthy Vs the Chief Engineer

N. M. Chinnappa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka