The Executive Engineer (Electrical), Vs Masthamma

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.57 measuring 26 guntas situated at Taggihalli Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. The KPTCL has drawn 220 KV and 110 KV electricity transmission line, that passes over the petitioner's land. It is said that they have cut and removed fruit bearing trees and destroyed crops.

¶27

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.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:5637 WP No. 6259 of 2023

¶30

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.

¶31

After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed statement of objections. They admitted that they have drawn the electric transmission lines that passes through the petitioners' land. The compensation awarded by the Authority is based on the report of the Horticulture Department. Hence, the compensation paid is just and proper. Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The petitioner examined her SPA Holder as PW1 and produced twenty documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P20. One Sri.T.R.Latha was examined as RW1 and produced three documents which were marked as Ex.R.1 to R.3.

¶33

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Order dated 07.11.2022 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.4,25,100/about diminution of land value and Rs.1,23,600/- towards cutting of coconut trees with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 25/07/2017 till payment. It is this order that is

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:5637 WP No. 6259 of 2023

¶36

called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶37

Counsel for the respective parties have urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶38

The short question that arise for consideration is

¶39

whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires modification?

¶40

The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The Trial Court referred to Doddakka's case, however, erroneously proceeded to calculate the compensation amount without taking into consideration of the cost of cultivation. It is significant to note that there are 11 coconut trees and 1 coconut sapling as the same evident from Ex.P7. Therefore, the amount of compensation towards the coconut trees requires re-calculation as under:

¶41

CALCULATION OF COCONUT TREES:

¶42

SL.NO.	NO. OF TREES	YIELD	PRICE (Rs.)
1.	11	150	10/-

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:5637 WP No. 6259 of 2023

¶45

150 X 10 X 10 = 15,000/-

¶46

30% Cost of Cultivation = 15,000 X 30/100= 4,500/-

¶47

15,000 - 4,500 = Rs.10,500/- per tree

¶48

10,500 X 11 = Rs.1,15,500/- (for 11 Coconut Trees).

¶49

There is one coconut sapling. This Court deems it proper to award Rs.3,000/- for one coconut sapling.

¶50

Rs.1,15,500/- + Rs.3,000/- = Rs.1,18,500/-

¶51

As far as payment of compensation towards diminishing value of the land is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner conducted a meeting with the land owners and with their consent, fixed the value of the land at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. However, the Trial Court erroneously placed reliance on the agreement for sale in respect of some other land and concluded that the value of the land was Rs.3,82,000/- for 7 guntas of land. The Trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the agreement for sale. Admittedly, the KPTCL had used only 26 guntas of land and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/taking into consideration the amount as Rs.5,000/- per gunta. The payment made by the KPTCL towards the diminishing value

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5637 WP No. 6259 of 2023

¶53

of the land is just and proper. Hence, the award of amount of Rs.4,25,100/- towards diminishing value of the land by the Trial Court cannot be sustained.

¶54

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part .

¶55

The Order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Court of VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Civil Misc.No.293/2020 is modified. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,18,500/for the loss of coconut trees and Rs.1,30,000/- for diminishing value of land with interest at the rate of 8% from the date petition till realization.

¶56

Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards diminishing value of the land has already been paid to the respondent.

¶57

The submission made by counsel for the petitioners is placed on record.

¶58

Lastly, counsel Smt.Shubha.S., submits that pursuant to the interim order, Rs.1,00,000/- has already been deposited before the Trial Court. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:5637 WP No. 6259 of 2023

¶61

Submission is noted. The Trial Court is directed to look into the deposit made by the Authority and calculate the same taking into consideration of the amount already paid and pay the balance amount if any to the Claimant. If there is any excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the Authorities.

¶62

SD/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶63

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), v. Masthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), v. Masthamma

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

M/S Pradeep Surgical Dressings Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner

Smt Rathnamma C Vs Sri S Hanumanthegowda

Sri. B.M Aekoramaswamy Vs Union of India

Sri M.Thayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Smt Girijamma

Kum. Pankaja Vs Sri. T. Ramaiah