IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.22324/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [ELE.,] MAJOR WORKS DIVISION K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN-572101 TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [ELE.] MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-IV K.P.T.C.L., KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN-572101 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.) AND:
NINGAMMA W/O LATE THOPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT G.MALLENAHALLI GUNGARUMALE POST NONAVINAKERE HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK-572201 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY Ms. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TIPTUR IN CIVIL MISC. No.10003/2015, DATED 15.12.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC., 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.10003/2015 dated 15.12.2018 filed by the respondent – claimant which has been allowed awarding the compensation of Rs.1,74,888/- 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.131 measuring 1.23 guntas, situated at G.Mallenahalli Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk wherein coconut and Neem 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 5 coconut trees aged 12 years and 3 neem trees aged 12 years. In this regard, the respondent herein was awarded with compensation of Rs.63,312/-.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondent has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.10003/2015 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 Additional District and Sessions Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,74,888/- 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 Sri.Ashok N. Patil appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent who was examined as PW-1 herself has stated that the yield per coconut tree is 162 to 180 [coconuts] per year and market value of a coconut is Rs.10 to 18/-. However, the learned District Judge has determined the yield of the coconuts at 200 per tree with the price of coconut at Rs.10/- which is not in conformity with the evidence available on record. 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 petitioner and perused the material available on record.
6. It may be true that PW-1 in her evidence would have stated that the yield per coconut tree would be 162 to 180 per year and the market value of the coconut tree would be at Rs.10 to 18/-. Ex.P10 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. If that to be considered in terms of the Ex.P10, 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.
7. Considering the yield certificate at Ex.P9 as well as the evidence available on record, the yield per coconut tree is fixed at 200. Merely for the reason that it is not in consonance with the actual figures stated by the petitioner, the same cannot be held to be unjustifiable. 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.
8. 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.1,74,888/- 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 NC.