IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S SUJATHA W.P.NO.23264/2018 (GM-KEB) Between:
G.V.Bheemaraj S/o G.R.Basanna Aged about 32 years R/o House No.1, Rayapura Molkalmuru Taluk-577535 Chitradurga District. … Petitioner (By Sri. R.Shashidhara, Advocate) And:
The Executive Engineer Major Works Division, KPTCL 3rd Cross, J.C.R.Extension Chitradurga-577501. ... Respondent (By Smt. Ultur Padmavati Suresh, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgement and award passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Misc.79/2016 dated 25.03.2017 vide annexure-F.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc. No.79/2016, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/claimant has been allowed directing the respondent to pay Rs.1,10,000/- with current and future interest at the rate of 8% p.a. towards the compensation/damages to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of 7 acres 39 guntas land in Sy.No.9/1 of Solenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Molakalmuru Taluk. The respondent had drawn 400 KV double circuit high tension electricity transmission line with one 400 KV tower in the petitioner’s land. Pursuant to which, the standing trees have been damaged, in addition to the diminution value of the land in question. The petition was filed under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 claiming compensation.
4. On hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that standing crops along with 80 coconut trees, 30 chico trees, 4 tamarind trees, 10 neem trees, 10 teak trees, 10 jaali trees and 10 honge trees were destroyed in the area of 4 acres subject land for which, no compensation has been paid by the learned District Judge. The total extent of utilization of land of 68.20 guntas including corridor determined by the learned District Judge is arbitrary and illegal. No mahazar was placed on record by the respondent to establish the exact extent of land utilized for setting up the towers and drawing the electric wire.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parameters laid down in the case of D.K.Thimmanna Vs. Executive Engineer and another in W.P.No.40344/2012 C/W W.P.No.40343/2012 (D.D. 31.07.2017) requires to be considered by the learned District and Sessions Judge in determining the compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent justifying the order impugned submitted that no evidence was placed on record by the petitioner to establish the standing crops including trees being destroyed by the respondent-authorities for drawing electric line and installing the power in the said land. On the basis of the Ex.R1 placed on record by the respondent, the extent of land utilized has been determined as 68.20 guntas and accordingly diminution value to the extent 30% of the land value is determined which is in conformity with the order passed by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, KPTCL and another Vs. Doddakka reported in (2014) 6 K.L.J.185. Hence, no interference is called for.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
9. It is evident that the respondent has not produced the mahazar drawn at the time of erecting tower and for laying the overhead high tension electricity lines. This Court in the Case of D.K.Thimmanna (Supra) has laid down certain parameters for awarding the compensation which reads thus:
6. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. For more than one reason, the matter requires reconsideration:
(i) The respondents have not produced the mahazar drawn at the time of erecting the tower and laying the overhead high tension electricity lines. The forum, which has to determine the compensation has to first ascertain the extent of the land utilized for such putting up of power.
(ii) The mahazar is to be produced for establishing as to what crop was grown and how many standing trees were to be cut and at what height they were cut for the purpose of laying the high tension electricity lines.
(iii) The respondents have not entered the witness box to show to the Additional District Court as to what is the approximate market value of the land. Merely taking the market value at Rs.85,000/- per acre based on the sale statistic provided by the Sub-Registrar is not warranted in such cases. The comparable sale statistics is definitely one of the known methods to determine the market value, but the same cannot be employed to the exclusion of all other methods and more particularly, the capitalization method.
(ii) It is also not known why the interest is paid only at the rate of 6% per annum. In the absence of any other applicable statutes and evolved guidelines, it may be safer for the Additional District Court to follow the factors, which are to be taken into account and the factors which are to be neglected, as prescribed in Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
10. The judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge impugned herein, is not in conformity with the order referred to above. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Learned District Judge for fresh consideration. The learned District Judge shall reconsider the matter keeping in mind the parameters set down by this Court in D.K.Thimmanna’s case referred to above and decide the matter in accordance with law in an expeditious manner. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open and the parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence, if any.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb