Writ by KPTCL challenging enhanced compensation awarded for coconut, mango and neem trees removed while drawing a transmission line over the respondent's land. The High Court modified the award, deducting 30% cost of cultivation per Doddakka's case, fixing total compensation at Rs.1,71,000/- with 6% interest on the balance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 12750 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASWATHAPPA.D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHITTAIAH Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N S/O CHITTAIAH, Location: High AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, Court of Karnataka R/O JANEHAR VILLAGE, KANDIKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.
…RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Aswathappa.D., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person.
An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 30.07.2021. 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.
It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.32/P2 situated at Janehar Village, Kandikere Hobli, C.N.Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCLrespondents have drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
Line from Thimmanahalli to Katrikehal tapping point, which passes through petitioner’s garden land. They have cut and removed fruit bearing trees and destroyed crops.
It is stated that the compensation awarded 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 hightension wire over his 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 KV Electricity Transmission Line which passes through petitioner’s land and that notice was issued to remove trees and crops. 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
The petitioner got examined as PW1 and produced seven documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P7. One Sri.Hanumantharayappa was examined as RW1 and no documents were produced on behalf of respondents.
On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.2,19,678/with interest 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.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
Next, he submitted that the aspect regarding cost of cultivation has not been properly considered by the Trial Court.
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.
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.
with care.
I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court. The award of amount in respect of Coconut Trees and Mango 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.
If we deduct 30% of cost of cultivation, the calculation will be as under:
CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:
| SL.NO. | NO. OF TREES | YIELD | PRICE |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Rs.) | |||
| 1. | 15 | 125 | 10/- |
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
CALCULATION OF MANGO TREES:
| SL.NO. | NO. OF TREES | YIELD | PRICE |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Rs.) | |||
| 1. | 1 | 50Kg | 75/- |
The compensation awarded as far as Neem Trees remains
unaltered.
Hence, the re-assessed compensation is as under:
| 1. | 15 Coconut Trees | Rs.1,31,250/- |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | 1 Mango Tree | Rs.26,250/- |
| 3. | 03 Neem Trees | Rs.13,500/- |
| Total Compensation | Rs.1,71,000/- |
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
Counsel Sri.D.Aswathappa., submits that the Authority has already paid a sum of Rs.18,822/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Two only) while drawing up of the line. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,52,178/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-Eight only) is to be paid to the claimant 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:44393 WP No. 12750 of 2021
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 Claimants. If there is any excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the Authorities.
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 59
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court for trees destroyed in drawing a transmission line required modification?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and another v. DoddakkaApplied¶7
ILR 2015 KAR 677 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Executive Engineer (ELE), Major Work Division, KPTCL
The Asst. Executive Engineer (ELE), Major Work Division-IV, KPTCL
Chittaiah
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
