IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.133/2016 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [ELEC.,] MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN-572102 TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [ELEC.,] No.2 MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMKUR TOWN-572102 TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.) AND:
SMT.RANGAMMA W/O LATE SRI KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT DEVIHALLY VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK-572227 TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-C DATED 28.03.2015 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC No.158/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this Court challenging the judgment and award passed by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur in Civil Misc.No.158/2013 dated 28.03.2015 whereby total compensation of Rs.3,84,100/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of installation till the date of recovery has been awarded for the utilization of the lands by the KPTCL in drawing high tension circuit electricity lines.
2. The respondent-claimant is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.196 measuring 4 acres and land in Sy.No.207 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Soolekere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District. On utilization of the said land for drawing high tension circuit electricity line, the KPTCL has paid an amount of Rs.2,29,691/- towards compensation for causing damages due to the cutting of trees.
3. Being aggrieved, the claimant had preferred Civil Misc.No.158/2013 before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tiptur. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,54,409/- with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of installation till the date of recovery. Being aggrieved, KPTCL is before this Court mainly on the ground that no cost of cultivation is determined and given deduction by the learned District Judge while computing compensation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Executive Engineer, KPTCL Vs. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 Kar 677.
4. Learned counsel for the KPTCL would submit that the cost of cultivation has to be determined at 30% and the same requires to be reduced while quantifying the compensation in conformity with the order of this Court in Doddakka’s case.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record, it is pertinent to note that no reasons have been recorded by the learned District Judge for not determining the cost of cultivation. Similarly it would be appropriate for the learned District Judge to award compensation considering the parameters set down by this court in D.K.Thimmanna’s case, supra.
6. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned District Judge to re-consider the matter in the light of the orders of this Court in Doddakka and Thimmanna’s case referred to above. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence, if any. The learned District Judge shall consider the matter afresh and take a decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove, in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.