IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.22331/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN :
1 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101.
2 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ELE.), MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV, K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD, T UMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101. ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT.PADMA S. UTTUR, ADV.) AND :
T.KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE THOPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O GUNGARUMALE VILLAGE NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572201. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TIPTUR IN CIVIL MISC.NO.10102/2014 DATED 9TH OCTOBER 2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the judgment and award of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.10102/2014 dated 9.10.2018 filed by the respondent-Claimant which has been allowed enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,01,930/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of recovery.
2. The respondent is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.62/2 measuring 38 guntas, situated at Melanahalli village, Dabbeghatta Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk wherein coconut, drumstick and teak trees were grown along with the other crops by using modern technologies. The petitioners have drawn 220/110 KV Electricity Transmission Line from Nonavinakere to Gungurumale tapping point, which passed through the garden land of the respondent which is of 22 meters width. The petitioners have cut and removed 8 coconut trees aged 30 years, 2 drum stick trees aged 7 years and 3 teak trees aged 12 years. In this regard, the respondent herein was awarded with compensation of Rs.1,26,870/-.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.10102/2014 contending that the compensation awarded by the authorities is unscientific and not in accordance with the market value and the actual yield as well as the income derived from the said crops. The learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge has enhanced the compensation by Rs.1,01,930/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of recovery as against Rs.1,26,870/- awarded by the KPTCL – petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the documents produced by the respondent No.1, Price List Ex.P10 which depicts the price of the coconut at Rs.3/- per nut during the relevant period. However, the court below has considered the same at Rs.10/- per nut. Similarly, the yield of the coconuts determined per tree per year at 180 is also not in conformity with the yield certificate Ex.P8. Adoption of multiplier of 10 and cost of cultivation at 30% is also challenged as arbitrary.
5. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, it is limpid that the Trial Court has examined the evidence available on record in extenso to arrive at the compensation determined. It is observed that there were three categories of trees as per the yield certificate issued by the Senior Horticultural Officer, Gubbi. The yield of such ‘A’ category coconut trees is 160 to 180 per tree. Further the market value of the agricultural products issued by the APMC relating to the relevant period has been taken as the basis to determine the price of the coconut at Rs.10/-. The quantification of the compensation based on the material evidence cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary. On the other hand, no cognet evidence was placed by the petitioner to discard the evidence of the claimant.
6. The multiplier of 10 and the cost of cultivation of 30% adopted by the Trial Court is in conformity with the order of the Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, KPTCL Vs. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677. Hence, the same cannot be held to be unjustifiable. Further, no diminution value towards the land utilized by the petitioner has been awarded.
Thus, Writ petition is bereft of merits, accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: