Allowed

The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) v. Sri T Kumaraswamy

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/11316/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified the Trial Court's compensation award by directing a 30% deduction from the cost of cultivation for arecanut trees, resulting in an entitled compensation of Rs. 21,000, and ordered the claimant to repay the excess amount to the authority.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned order; ordered the claimant to pay Rs. 21,000 to the authority instead of the enhanced amount and refund the excess of Rs. 20,008.

The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) Vs Sri T Kumaraswamy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11316 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE), MAJOR, WORK DIVISION, KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), MAJOR, WORK DIVISION-IV, KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. D.ASWATHAPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI T.KUMARASWAMY Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N S/O THIMMEGOWDA, Location: High AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Court of Karnataka R/O PANKAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Aswathappa.D., counsel for the petitioners has

¶23

appeared in person.

¶24

An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 29.06.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner filed a petition in Civil

¶27

Misc.No.10075/2018 before the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, and sought for enhanced compensation.

¶28

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.66/2C situated at Pankajanahalli Village, Shettikere Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL has drawn 220/110KV high tension electric line over the

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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 Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture. Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶34

The petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and produced eleven documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶37

P11. One Sri.Ravi.B.A was examined as RW1 and no documents were produced on behalf of the respondents.

¶38

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Order dated 06.09.2019 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.8,992/(Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Two 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 that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶39

Sri.D.Aswathappa., counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the KPTCL has 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.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

Lastly, he submitted that learned Trial Judge erred in not taking into consideration the vital and key facts that the Authority has 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, he submitted that award of compensation requires modification and therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition may be allowed.

¶45

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶46

with care.

¶47

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

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶49

Counsel for the petitioners in presenting her

¶50

arguments drew the attention of the Court to the decision reported in THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL,

¶51

CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER V. DODDAKKA - ILR 2015 KAR 677.

¶52

I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The award of amount in respect of Arecanut Trees requires modification. In view of DODDAKKA’s case, the cost of cultivation should be deducted at 30%. Hence in my opinion, the award of compensation requires modification.

¶53

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

¶54

CALCULATION OF ARECANUT TREES:

¶55

SL.NO.	NO. OF TREES	YIELD	PRICE (Rs.)
1.	10	2 Kg	150/-

¶56

150 X 2 X 10 = 3,000/-

¶57

30% Cost of Cultivation = 3,000 X 30/100= 900/-

¶58

3,000 - 900 = Rs.2,100/- per tree

¶59

2,100 X 10 = Rs.21,000/- (for 10 Arecanut Trees).

¶60

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶62

Taking into consideration the above calculation, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Thousand only).

¶63

Counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.41,008/- (Rupees Forty-One Thousand and Eight only) while drawing up of the line. Therefore, the claimant has received excess amount of Rs.20,008/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Eight only) and the same should be repaid to the authority.

¶64

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed . The Order dated 06.09.2019 passed by the Court of V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10075/2018 is modified. The claimant is directed to repay the excess amount of Rs.20,008/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand and Eight only) to the authority.

¶65

Lastly, counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that pursuant to the interim order, 50% of the award amount has already been deposited before the Trial Court. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC:44391 WP No. 11316 of 2021

¶68

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

¶69

and refund the excess amount to the Authority.

¶70

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶71

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 57

The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) v. Sri T Kumaraswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintendent Engineer (Ele) v. Sri T Kumaraswamy

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

M/S Sahyadri Electricals Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Chetan Bharath Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Mr Layeequar Rahman Khan Vs the Commissioner

Sri B K Mariyappa Vs Sri B K Ranganatha

Sri R Srinivas Vs Sri Markondappa

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Chittaiah