M T Rajakumar @ Rajakumar Vs the Executive Engineer Kptcl

REP. BY GPA HOLDER, M.T. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY, AGED 44 YEARS, R/O RAMAJJANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 527, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

[BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

¶16

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL MAJOR WORKS, SUB DIVISION-1, 3^RD CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA -577 501.

¶18

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL MAJOR WORKS, SUB DIVISION-1, 3^RD CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA -577 501.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

[BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:30094 WP No. 1936 of 2022

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF SPECIAL 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC NO.477/2019 DATED 20.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶26

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Challenging order dated 20.12.2021 passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.477/2019, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel submitted that petitioner is owner of extent of 2 Acres 20 guntas in Sy.no.106/3 of Ramajjanahalli Village, Madadakere Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chithradurga District, wherein he was growing chilly crop. He had also planted 75 mango trees, 35 tamarind trees, 3 coconut trees and other trees. It was submitted during year 2017-18, respondents drew 66 KV High Tension electricity transmission line over petitioner's land. At that time, they cut trees and destroyed crop. Though petitioner was paid compensation of Rs.1,09,555/-, same was not commensurate with damages sustained. Therefore, petitioner

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:30094 WP No. 1936 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

raised dispute before District Judge under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short).

¶35

In petition, he had clearly stated that an extent of 1 Acre 20 guntas of his land fell under High Tension wires and that respondents had cut 75 mango trees, 35 tamarind trees, 1 bela tree, 3 jaali trees, 2 tuggali trees and 3 coconut trees. And payment of Rs.1,09,555/- as damages was not on any scientific assessment. It was further stated that nature of petitioner's land was bagayat (garden) land and it had Borewell facility. Therefore, he was growing horticulture crops and earning more than Rs.2 Lakhs per annum, which income he had lost. He had further asserted that value of land was more than Rs.10 Lakhs per acre and due to drawing of High Tension wires, it's value has diminished. Therefore, he had sought for compensation towards damages not only towards loss of income from trees but also diminished value of land.

¶36

Though respondents filed objections as per Annexure-B, there was no specific denial about particulars of trees stated to be grown in petitioner’s land as averred in para 3 of petition and market value of petitioner’s land at Rs.10

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:30094 WP No. 1936 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Lakhs as asserted in para 7 of petition. It was submitted, Annexure-C/Ex.P2 clearly showed that petitioner’s land had Mango and Arecanut saplings and value of Arecanut growing land as per Annexure-D/Ex.P3 was Rs.5 Lakhs. Therefore, assessment of compensation by learned District Judge considering nature of petitioner’s land as dry land and adopting lower value and considering only loss of 3 coconut trees was contrary to material on record and sought enhancement.

¶41

On other hand, Smt.S. Shubha, learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition. It was submitted, while drawing of 66 KV High Tension transmission line over petitioner’s land was not disputed, it was asserted that respondents had compensated petitioner for damages sustained to crops and trees. Even before learned District Judge, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for enhancement by placing relevant material on record. It was submitted, Record of Rights ('RoR') at Ex.P2 was for year 201819 while extract of Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV' for short) marked as Ex.P3 was for year 2020-21 and not for relevant period i.e., 2017-18. It was further submitted, learned District Judge has specifically recorded admission by petitioner

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:30094 WP No. 1936 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

examined as PW.1, about nature of his land being dry and failure to produce any material to substantiate market value of his land at Rs.10 Lakhs. Therefore, impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularities and illegality.

¶46

Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition and

¶47

records.

¶48

While drawing up of High Tension electricity transmission line over land belonging to petitioner during 201718 is not in dispute, order passed by learned District Judge under Section 16(3) of Act determining quantum of damages sustained is assailed on specific grounds. Insofar as petitioner's claim about number of trees cut from petitioner's land, though petitioner stated particulars in para 3 of petition as 75 mango trees, 35 tamarind trees, 1 bela tree, 3 jaali trees, 2 tuggali trees and 3 coconut trees, same is not corroborated by any material. Indeed RoR at Ex.P2 in Column no.12(9) would contain entries of Arecanut saplings in 1 acre and Mango saplings in 1 acre 20 guntas. Said RoR is for year 2018-19, which would be one year after drawing of transmission line. Admittedly, number of saplings and trees is not stated. It is

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:30094 WP No. 1936 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

trite that burden would be on claimant to establish damages sustained by leading cogent evidence. Except self serving oral testimony, which is denied by respondents in their objections filed and elicited in cross-examination of petitioner, there is no specific material to substantiate petitioner's claim. Therefore, said contention would have to be rejected.

¶53

Insofar as nature of land, petitioner's claim is based on contents of Exs.P2 and P3. While Ex.P2, as noted above, is for subsequent year and entries in Column no.12(8) mention it as 'dry land' and source of water as 'rain', Ex.P3 is SRGV for year 2020-21. There is no specific explanation by petitioner for failure to produce SRGV for relevant period i.e., 2017-18 nor any assertion that value was same as in Ex.P3. In any case, learned District Judge has adopted value mentioned for dry land in Ex.P3 while assessing compensation. Therefore, said ground would also not yield any benefit to petitioner.

¶54

Lastly, insofar as petitioner's assertion about market value of petitioner's land to be Rs.10 Lakhs as asserted in para 7 of petition, there is specific denial of value at Rs.10 Lakhs. Moreover, during cross-examination, petitioner admitted

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:30094 WP No. 1936 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

that he failed to produce any documents to substantiate said

¶59

claim. Consequently, none of petitioner's contentions as against order impugned would hold. Perusal of impugned order would indicate reference made to Ex.R1 - memo of particulars of trees, awarding Rs.35,058/- for 3 coconut trees to petitioner which would be at Rs.11,686/- per tree. Insofar as diminished value of land, learned District Judge has considered it at 30% of SRGV, which would be in terms of decision of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.no.100366/2022 and connected matters decided on 20.06.2023. Consequently, no interference would be warranted, writ petition is dismissed .

¶60

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶61

AV

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

M T Rajakumar @ Rajakumar v. the Executive Engineer Kptcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M T Rajakumar @ Rajakumar v. the Executive Engineer Kptcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Nagaraj Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

The Maratha Mandal English Medium School, Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs Executive Engineer

M/S Nandi Builders and Developers Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Boreas Renewable Energy Private Limited Vs Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Kempaiah