IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NOS. 2886 - 2887 OF 2014 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL (BESCOM), NEAR KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577501.
... APPELLANTS (BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHIVANNA, SON OF CHIKKARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF PALLAVAGERE VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 501.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.36924 OF 2013 CONNECTED WITH W.P.NO.38525 OF 2014 DATED 12/08/2014.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2014 of the learned Single Judge in Writ petition Nos.36924 of 2013 connected with Writ Petition No.38525 of 2014, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is in appeals seeking to set aside the said order.
2. The appellants-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited filed Writ petition No.36924 of 2013 assailing the order dated 22.04.2013 passed in Misc.No.146 of 2009 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga by which the Misc. petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, claiming compensation was allowed granting compensation of Rs.14,36,733/-. The respondent-land owner also filed Writ Petition No.38525 of 2014 challenging the same order seeking enhancement of compensation. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and disposed off by the common order.
3. The respondent herein states that he is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.2/3P7 situated at Pallavagee Village, Chitradurga Taluk, measuring 2 acres. The appellants-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited have drawn high tension electricity line over his land due to which 561 arecanut trees and 561 banana plants were cut. The appellant-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited paid only meager amount as compensation towards the damage caused by them. The respondent not being satisfied with the compensation filed a petition before the learned District Judge, Chitradurga, claiming compensation. The learned District Judge taking into consideration areal space as 30.43 guntas and market value of the land at Rs.90,000/-, calculated compensation. The learned District Judge also determined diminution value at 50% and applied multiplier of 15 to arrive at the just compensation. The learned District Judge by his order, as stated above, awarded total compensation of Rs.14,36,733/- with interest at 6% p.a. Both the land owner as well as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited filed writ petitions challenging the order of the learned District Judge, dated 22.04.2013 in Misc. No.146 of 2009. The learned Single Judge on hearing both sides, has enhanced the compensation to Rs.17,53,125/-. While enhancing the compensation, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the order of this Court passed on in Writ Petition No.39979 of 2013 on 6.8.2014. While the learned Single Judge reducing the diminution value of the land to 30%, applied multiplier of 10 for calculating the compensation. The appellants-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited being aggrieved by the application of 10 multiplier, are before this Court in these appeals.
4. Heard the Learned counsel for the appellants- Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Learned counsel for the respondent-land owner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited submits that the appellants are in appeals only with regard to adopting the multiplier of 10 by the learned Single Judge and contends that the multiplier of 8 ought to have been adopted. The learned counsel submits that the application of the decision in case of Shaik Imambi Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telegu Ganga Project reported in 2011(11) SCC 639 is not proper. Thus, she prays for allowing the appeals.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-land owner submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the multiplier of 10 for determination of compensation and supports the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. The appellants have drawn high tension electricity line over the respondent’s land due to which the respondent has suffered the damages and in that connection, he has lost 561 arecanut trees and 561 banana plants. The arecanut trees were four years old and banana trees were one year old. The appellants had produced Ex.P.19 to show the annual yield of arecanut trees. The drawing of high tension line by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited affected the land of the respondent to an extent of 30.43 guntas. The learned District Judge had applied the multiplier of 15 while determining the compensation. The learned Single Judge relying on the decision of this Court dated 6.8.2014 in W.P. No.39979 of 2013 and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Imambi Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telegu Ganga Project reported in 2011(11) SCC 639, held that the respondent land owner would be entitled for multiplier of 10 for determination of compensation. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as follows:
“6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the multiplier should not be less than 14 adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer. We cannot accept the contention of the appellant. Having regard to the consistent view taken by this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the multiplier should be 10. This Court has repeatedly held that the standard multiplier should be 10; and that in special circumstances based upon specific evidence regarding the nature, standard, condition of the orchard, the Court may apply a higher multiplier of 12 or 13 or a lower multiplier of 8. But no such special circumstances are made out.
7. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the High Court that the multiplier should be 10 does not call for interference.”
In the case on hand the land owner has lost arecanut trees of four years old and banana trees of one year old. Taking note of the lifespan of the trees adopting of 10 multiplier for determining compensation is proper and is in accordance with law.
8. The learned Single Judge has passed the reasoned order, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which needs no interference. The appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA