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.22325/2019 (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 :
1 . LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O G.MALLENAHALLI, GUNGARUMALE POST, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRCIT-572201, DEAD BY LRS.
2. KARUNAKARA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O G.MALLENAHALLI, GUNGARUMALE POST, NONAVINAKERE HOBLI, TIPUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRCIT-572201, 3. DAKSHAYINI W/O GOVINDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O VITAL DEVARAHALLI DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101. …RESPONDENTS 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.10006/2015 DATED 13TH DECEMBER 2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS 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.10006/2015 dated 13.12.2018 filed by the respondents – claimants wherein, the compensation of Rs.2,90,620/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of recovery has been awarded.
2. The respondents are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.101/6A measuring 32 guntas, situated at Gungarumale Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk wherein coconut, neem 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 15 coconut trees aged 40 years, 5 teak trees aged 12 years and 4 neem trees aged 12 years. In this regard, the respondents herein were awarded with compensation of Rs.1,60,880/-.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondents have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.10006/2015 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 to Rs.2,90,620/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of recovery. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel Ms.Padma S. Uttur appearing for the petitioners would submit that the yield of the coconuts at 180 per tree with the price of coconut at Rs.10/- is not in conformity with Ex.P7 which shows the yield as 100 to 150 per tree. It is submitted that in terms of the order of the Cognate Bench of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, KPTCL V/s. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, the yield at 103 per tree with the price at Rs.5/- per coconut would be just and reasonable and as such the matter requires consideration by this Court.
5. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.
6. Ex.P8 relied upon by the learned District Judge is the price list of the APMC relating to the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 which depicts the minimum of Rs.6,000/- and maximum of Rs.13,150/- relating to the year 2013-14 as the price per quintal and Rs.7,000/- minimum and Rs.18,000/- maximum relating to the year 2014-15 per quintal. No material evidence is produced by the petitioner to rebut Ex.P8. In terms of the Ex.P8, the price of the coconut fixed at Rs.10/- by the District Judge cannot be faulted with. The yield of the coconut depends on the topography. There is no strait jacket formula to determine the yield and price of the coconut with mathematical exactitude. The same depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Even otherwise, no diminution value of the land has been awarded by the learned District Judge for utilizing the land by the petitioners. If that to be considered, the total compensation awarded at Rs.2,90,620/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of recovery cannot be held to be exorbitant or unreasonable.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: