The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Smt Girijamma

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5675 WP No. 8862 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 8862 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), NO.5, SUB-DIVISION, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (K.P.T.C.L), KOTITOPU, TUMAKURU.

¶8

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), NO.5., SUB-DIVISION, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, IV, K.P.T.C.L., KOTIHOPU, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SMT. SHUBHA.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O KUMARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, TAGGIHALLI NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 211.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.D.K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:5675 WP No. 8862 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Smt.Shubha.S., counsel for the petitioners and

¶22

Sri.Shivakumar.D.K., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶24

The petitioner filed a petition in Civil Misc.No.316/2020 before the VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru, and sought for enhanced compensation.

¶25

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.7/P11 measuring 32 gutnas 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.

¶26

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.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:5675 WP No. 8862 of 2023

¶29

It is also stated that since there is a drawing up of Electric Transmission Line over the land, there is diminishing of value of the land and hence, he prayed for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

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.

¶31

The petitioner examined as PW1 and produced ten documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P10. One Sri.T.R.Latha was examined as RW1 and produced three documents which were marked as Ex.R.1 to R.3.

¶32

On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide Order dated 31.10.2022 awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.5,23,200/about diminution of land value with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 18.11.2016 till payment. It is this order that is

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:5675 WP No. 8862 of 2023

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

The short question that arise for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Trial Court requires modification?

¶38

The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. The 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 32 guntas of land and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.1,59,439/taking into consideration the amount as Rs.5,000/- per gunta.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5675 WP No. 8862 of 2023

¶40

The payment made by the KPTCL towards the diminishing value of the land is just and proper. Hence, the award of amount of Rs.5,23,200/- towards diminishing value of the land by the Trial Court cannot be sustained.

¶41

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part . The Order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Court of VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in Civil Misc.No.316/2020 is modified. The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,59,439/- for diminishing value of land with interest at the rate of 8% from the date petition till realization.

¶42

Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the amount of Rs.1,59,439/- towards diminishing value of the land has already been paid to the respondent.

¶43

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

¶44

Lastly, counsel Smt.Shubha.S., submits that pursuant to the interim order, 50% of the enhanced amount has already been deposited before the Trial Court. Hence, an appropriate order may be passed.

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:5675 WP No. 8862 of 2023

¶46

6 -

¶47

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

¶48

the balance amount if any to the Claimant. If there is any excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the Authorities.

¶49

SD/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶50

MRP

¶51

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) v. Smt Girijamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) v. Smt Girijamma

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 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

Kum. Pankaja Vs Sri. T. Ramaiah

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), Vs Masthamma