Partly allowed¶38

The Executive Engineer v. Revanna

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025WP/5529/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPTCL writ (GM-KEB), WP 5529/2021, decided 09.01.2025: tree-compensation reduction. 30% cost-of-cultivation deduction applied to coconut-tree award per Division Bench ruling in W.A.No.100366/2022 batch; honge trees revalued at Rs.4,000/- per tree (Rs.64,000/- replacing Rs.72,000/-) per co-ordinate Bench; final compensation Rs.2,67,000/- @ 8% p.a. from date of petition till payment, prior payments adjustable. Impugned order: 23.07.2019, CMP No.10002/2016, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur; respondent Revanna served and unrepresented; neem component (14 trees, Rs.63,000/-) unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part: respondent's compensation revised to Rs.2,67,000/- carrying interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment; any amount already paid to be adjusted. ¶38

The Executive Engineer Vs Revanna — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether 30% of the compensation awarded for the 16 coconut trees is deductible towards cost of cultivation, the Trial Court not having taken cultivation expenses into consideration. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Since the Trial Court did not deduct cultivation expenses, 30% towards cost of cultivation has to be deducted from the compensation awarded for coconut trees, in accordance with the Division Bench ruling that 30% is the cost of cultivation for fruit-bearing trees.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the co-ordinate Bench benchmark of Rs.4,000/- per Honge tree, the respondent is entitled to Rs.64,000/- for the Honge trees as against the Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Trial Court.

¶33

Key takeaways

The respondent's total compensation is refixed at Rs.2,67,000/- (after the 30% deduction on the coconut component and reduction of the Honge component to Rs.64,000/-), payable with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, with any amount already paid liable to be adjusted.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), oral order dated 09.01.2025: W.P. No. 5529 of 2021 (GM-KEB) filed by the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Tumakuru, challenging the order dated 23.07.2019 of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.10002/2016, which had allowed the respondent Revanna's petition in part and awarded Rs.3,10,841/- with 8% interest (head-wise Rs.3,35,000/-: 16 coconut trees Rs.2,00,000/-; 14 neem trees Rs.63,000/-; 16 honge trees Rs.72,000/-). Applying the Division Bench ruling in W.A.No.100366/2022 and connected matters that 30% represents the cost of cultivation of coconut and other fruit-bearing trees, the Court deducted 30% from the coconut-tree component since the Trial Court had not deducted cultivation expenses; and adopting the co-ordinate Bench benchmark of Rs.4,000/- per honge tree for the same year, reduced the honge component to Rs.64,000/-. The petition was allowed in part and the respondent's compensation fixed at Rs.2,67,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, any amount already paid to be adjusted. The neem-tree component was left undisturbed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:815 WP No. 5529 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5529 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR, WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶9

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR, WORKS DIVISION - IV, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

REVANNA, S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT ASHEIHALL VILLAGE, KANDIKERE HOBLI, C N HALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.23.7.2019 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.10002/2016 (BY HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TIPTUR PASSED BY HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TUMAKURU PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:815 WP No. 5529 of 2021

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed impugning the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.10002/2016. In terms of the impugned order dated 23.07.2019, V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, has allowed the petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.3,10,841/- in favour of the present respondent along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of recovery of the said amount.

¶21

The petitioners are before this Court challenging the said order. As can be seen from the impugned order at paragraph No.17, compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- is awarded under the following heads :-

¶22

16 coconut trees : Rs.2,00,000/2. 14 Neem trees : Rs. 63,000/-

¶23

16 Honge trees : Rs. 72,000/-

¶24

--------------------------Rs.3,35,000/-

¶25

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:815 WP No. 5529 of 2021

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that while awarding Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for 16 coconut trees, the Court has not taken into consideration the cost of cultivation. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.100366/2022 and connected matters has held that 30% is the cost of cultivation as far as coconut and other fruit bearing trees is concerned. Thus it is his contention that 30% of the compensation awarded by the Trial Court has to be deducted towards the cost of cultivation.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that co-ordinate Bench of this Court has awarded Rs.4,000/- for each honge tree as compensation for the same year. This being the position, the compensation for Honge trees would be Rs.64,000/- as against Rs.72,000/awarded by the Trial Court.

¶30

This Court has considered the aforementioned judgments. It is noticed that the Division Bench of this Court has held that 30% is the cost of cultivation for fruit bearing

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:815 WP No. 5529 of 2021

¶33

trees. The Trial Court has not deducted cultivation expenses, in which event 30% has to be deducted in the compensation awarded by the Trial Court in respect of coconut trees and awarding Rs.4,000/- for each Honge tree, the respondent herein is entitled to Rs.64,000/- as against

¶34

Rs.72,000/-.

¶35