IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1583 OF 2015 [GM-KEB] BETWEEN:
THIPPESWAMY, SON OF PATHANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KATANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIRENAHALLY POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577 522.
(BY SRI. JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADVOCATE) AND 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.P.T.C.L. (BESCOM), MAJOR, WORKS DIVISION, ... APPELLANT R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, DIVISION-1, K.P.T.C.L. (BESCOM), NEAR K.S.R.T.C. DEPOT, CHITRADURGA-577 501.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6318 OF 2014 DATED 13.08.2014.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6318 of 2014 in modifying the compensation awarded by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, the claimant has filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that so far as the multiplier is concerned, the District Judge has rightly held as ‘20’, whereas the learned Single Judge applied the multiplier as 8. Therefore, the compensation requires to be enhanced.
3. The said contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that in an identical circumstance a Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal Nos.2886-2887 of 2014, filed by the respondents, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36924 of 2013 and connected matters, adopted the multiplier at ‘10’, as against the multiplier adopted by the District Judge at ‘15’. Hence, following the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.2886-2887 of 2014, we adopt the multiplier of ‘10’ as against the multiplier of ‘8’ adopted by the learned Single Judge.
5. In the instant case, there are 58 coconut trees, amongst which, 10 coconut trees were less than 6 months old. Having regard to the nature of labour and the period of nourishment, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.1,000/- to be awarded for each of these 10 coconut trees. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded (Rs.10 x 1,000/-).
6. So far as remaining 48 coconut trees are concerned, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the multiplier adopted at ‘8’ is inappropriate. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra, the multiplier of ’10’ is adopted. Therefore, for 48 trees, 103 coconuts are taken. However, the order of the learned Single Judge so far as the price of each coconut at Rs.5/- excluding all the expenses, is undisturbed. Therefore, for 48 trees the calculation is worked out as follows:-
48 trees x 103 coconuts per year x Rs.5/- x 10 multiplier = Rs.2,47,200/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.2,57,200/-.
Hence, the compensation stands enhanced to Rs.2,57,200/- as against Rs.2,07,600/-.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Snc