Partly allowed

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) v. Sri Rangegowda

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024WP/10624/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court modified an impugned order determining compensation for 14 removed coconut trees. The Court held that cultivation costs should be deducted at 30% of the gross value, resulting in an additional payment liability for the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is modified to reduce the compensation value by deducting 30% cultivation cost; petitioners ordered to pay a difference of Rs.15,204/- with 8% interest.

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri Rangegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11265 WP No. 10624 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10624 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD KOTHIPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KOTHIPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI RANGEGOWDA S/O. LATE. JAVAREGOWDA, W/O. LATE. PANDITARADYA, R/O. BANASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TUREVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.10057/2018 (BY HON'BLE V ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11265 WP No. 10624 of 2021

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Respondent filed a petition under Section 19 of the Electricity Act r/w Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1985, for enhancement of compensation towards 14 coconut trees which were removed for drawing of high tension electric line by the petitioners herein.

¶18

Learned District Judge by impugned order determined the compensation for the 14 coconut trees which were removed at Rs.1,75,000/- by taking the value at Rs.10/- per coconut.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Judge has not deducted cost of cultivation for determining the value of the coconut trees, and therefore to this extent, the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge requires to be modified.

¶20

In support, he places reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, KPTCL -vs- Doddakka in W.P.No.39979/2013, disposed of on 6.8.2014.

¶21

The respondent though served with notice has not chosen to appear either personally or through his counsel.

¶22

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.39979/2013 by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner-cum-land Acquisition Officer,

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11265 WP No. 10624 of 2021

¶24

Bellary -vs- S.T.Pompanna Setty, (2005) 9 SCC 662 , has ruled that, the cost of the cultivation in respect of fruits bearing trees will be 30% and the net income has to be calculated on the basis of Rs.5/- per coconut giving margin to the cost incurred for cultivation and other expenses.

¶25

In the instant case, cost of cultivation was not deducted before determining the market value of 14 Coconut trees which were removed at the time of drawing high tension lines by the petitioners. Therefore, the net value of the 14 Coconut trees comes to Rs.1,22,500/- (14 coconut trees X 125 coconuts X 10 years X Rs.7/- per coconut = Rs.1,22,500/-). Out of which, the petitioners have already paid a sum of Rs.1,07,296/- and are liable to pay difference amount of Rs.15,204/- at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition before the Trial Court till actual payment.

¶26

To this extent, the impugned judgment passed by the 5^th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Civil Misc.No.10057/2018 stands modified.

¶27

Any deposit made in the light of the interim order passed by this Court shall be transmitted to the Trial Court concerned.

¶28

HR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) v. Sri Rangegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) v. Sri Rangegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K T Srinivash Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

P. Arjun G Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

R Venkatachalapathi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Syed Mufeez Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar M Vs Radha M

The Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri G Chidanandaswamy