The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Rajanna

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) NO.5, SUB-DIVISION, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. (KPTCL), KOTITOPU, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.) NO.5, SUB-DIVISION, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. (KPTCL), KOTITOPU, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. DIVYA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

RAJANNA SON OF RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A TAGGIHALLI VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR D K., ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36362 WP No. 6932 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2022 IN CIVIL MISC. NO. 311/20 PASSED BY VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS CIVIL MISC. NO.311/2020AWARD COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 16.11.2022 at Annexure-A passed by VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru, in C.Misc.no.311/2020, this writ petition is filed.

¶26

Ms.Divya, learned counsel, appearing for Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioners had laid 220 KV High Tension Electricity Transmission line during year 2013. On ground that land measuring 32 guntas in Sy.no.9/P5 situated at Taggihalli, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi, Taluk, wherein respondent claimed to be owner had sustained damages to crops as well as diminution of value of land, respondent filed application under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, before learned District Judge, registered as C.Misc.no.311/2020.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:36362 WP No. 6932 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

On appearance, petitioners herein had filed

¶31

objections.

¶32

Based on pleadings, following points were framed:

¶33

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation? If so, at what rate?

¶34

ii) To what order?

¶35

In trial, respondent examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of petitioners, one witness was examined as RW1 and Exhibits R1 to R.3 were marked.

¶36

On consideration, learned District Judge, answered point no.1 partly in affirmative and point no.2 by allowing application in part enhancing compensation to Rs.5,23,200/for diminution of value of land and Rs.2,57,500/- towards cutting down of 50 coconuts trees; Rs.1,13,000/- towards cutting of arecanut saplings and Rs.5000/- for cutting of three curry leave trees, with interest at 8% per annum. Aggrieved by same, petitioners had filed this writ petition.

¶37

It was firstly submitted, while determining market value of land for purposes of assessment of diminution of value of land, respondent had sought to rely upon agreement of sale marked as Ex.P.7. Though, in course of order, learned District

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:36362 WP No. 6932 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Judge would observe that it was only an agreement and not concluded sale transaction and it nevertheless adopted market value as mentioned therein and proceeded to determine value of petitioners land at Rs.54,500/- per gunta. Same was grossly excessive and sought for setting aside same. It was further submitted, though there was no dispute about number of coconut, arecanut and curry leave trees on lands of respondent, it was submitted, learned District Judge had erred in not deducting any amount towards cultivation costs and considered all of them as fruit bearing. On said ground impugned order call for interference.

¶42

On other hand, Sri Shivakumar DK, learned counsel

¶43

for respondent sought to support order. It was submitted, Ex.P.7, though was an agreement of sale, same was marked in another proceedings and assessment was made on said basis. It was further submitted, agreement of sale at Ex.P.7 was genuine and therefore adoption of value for diminution of market value in course of determination of damages sustained, was justified.

¶44

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶45

record.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36362 WP No. 6932 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

From above, petitioners grievance against order at Annexure-A is on two counts: firstly, insofar as acceptance of purchase price mentioned in agreement of sale - Ex.P.7 as market value of land in question and secondly, non-deduction of cultivation costs while determining compensation due to felling of fruit bearing trees.

¶49

Perusal of impugned order would reveal learned District Judge has indeed noted that Ex.P.7 was not a regular sale deed, but only a registered agreement of sale. It is also noted that no material was placed to establish that regular sale deed was thereafter executed in pursuance of Ex.P.7. Nevertheless, learned District Judge adopted value mentioned therein for determination of market value. An agreement of sale would be incomplete contract. Market value mentioned therein cannot be stated to be a true market value. In absence of material placed by either of parties, whether said agreement to sell, culminated in a sale deed, valuation cannot be taken for purpose of determining market value. It is seen that except Ex.P.7, petitioner has not produced any other material to indicate value of land. Even compensation stated to have been paid by petitioners as per Annexure-F would also not indicate

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36362 WP No. 6932 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

determination of market value. Under above circumstances, it would be appropriate to remit matter back to District Court for determination of market value.

¶53

Insofar as valuation of trees as rightly submitted, while assessing compensation based on yield method cultivation cost has to be deducted. Failure to deduct same would be apparent error on face of record and assessment of compensation by learned District Judge, insofar as trees would suffer from said error. There is no material to indicate extent of cultivation costs.

¶54

Besides, petitioners are also challenging assessment of compensation for coconut trees as well as arecanut trees on ground that they were not yet fruit bearing by relying upon compensation rate stated to be issued by department of horticulture, produced as Annexure - D herein. But, same are not produced and marked before District Judge.

¶55

In view of above, as findings arrived at by learned District Judge both insofar as assessment of market value of land as well as compensation towards trees is erroneous, it is found appropriate to remit matter back reserving liberty to parties to lead further evidence on same.

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36362 WP No. 6932 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Consequently, Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated16.11.2022 at Annexure-A passed by VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakur, in C.Misc.no.311/2020, is set aside. Matter is remitted back to trial Court for fresh determination in accordance with law and keeping in mind observations made herein above. Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before trial Court without awaiting notice on 03.11.2025. Thereafter learned District Judge proceed to pass orders afresh after affording opportunity to either of parties to lead further evidence, if so they desires.

¶59

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶60

Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Ele) v. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shiva Irrigation Systems Vs the Managing Director

The Managing Director Vs B v Thippeswamy

Mrs.Gangavarapu Prashanthi Vs State of Karnataka

K N Hemareddy Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Sri H S Krishnamurthy Vs Commissioner of Excise

Sri Yogesh S a Vs the State of Karnataka