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.27304/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
KPTCL REP. BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC), MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL, MANIPAL, UDUPI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADV.) AND:
1 . GOPALAKRISHNA THANTRY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2 . U. PADMANABHA THANTRY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3 . VEDAVYASA THANTRY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
3(a) V. USHA TANTRY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3(b) KALAVATHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 3(c) KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3(a) IS THE WIFE AND 3(b) & 3(c) ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE VEDAVYASA THANTRI ALL ARE R/AT SANTHOOR VILLAGE & POST UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.
4 . SRINIVASA THANTHRY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5 . HARIDAS THANTRY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6 . S. ANANTHA THANTRY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 7 . JAYATHIRTHA THANTRY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS THE PETITIONER No.1 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN’S OF LATE ANNAPPA THANTRY, ALL ARE R/AT SANTHOOR VILLAGE & POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-574139.
RESPONDENT No.1, 3 TO 5 & 7 ARE REP. BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER RESPONDENT No.2 S.PADMANABHA THANTRY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.K.ACHARYA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2018 PASSED IN MISC.NO.15/2011 BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi in Miscellaneous Case No.15/2011 dated 23.02.2018 insofar the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- awarded towards the loss of land while determining the total compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- under Section 16[3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the order of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and Another V/s. Doddakka, reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677 would submit that the compensation of Rs.6,000/- per cent assessed by the learned District Judge and awarding compensation towards the loss of land is wholly arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that no land has been acquired by the petitioner. Utmost, there would be diminution of land value to which reasonable compensation of 30% of the market value of the area affected ought to have been determined.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents justifying the order impugned would submit that the assessment is made on the material evidence available on record. Ex.P5 – valuation report issued by Sri.Ivan C.P. D’Souza has been considered by the learned District Judge which is based on the data collected with the assistance of the Taluka Surveyor, Forest Officials and the valuation of surrounding lands. Installing of high tension wires of 220 meters would make the land to the extent of 106.6 cents unfit for utilization and no crops can be grown in the said area. Hence, the diminution value determined by the Court below is in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on the order of this Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Dharwad and Others V/s. Karnataka Electricity Board and Another, reported in [2002] IV Civil Law Times 37; and Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Dharwad V/s. Devendrappa, reported in 2016 [2] AKR 161.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. It is not in dispute inasmuch as the market value of the land determined by the Court below. There is no scope to interfere with the valuation of the market value made by the learned District Judge based on the evidence on record. However, awarding the diminution value equal to the market value of the area affected is unjustifiable, and is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Doddakka supra. It is well settled that the farmer is not capable of growing trees underneath the corridor. However, he is entitled to grow other crops which may not affect the High Voltage transmission line. The lands are not acquired by the petitioner for installation of the High Voltage Transmission line across the land. Utilization of certain portion of the land is indeed affected. Considering these factors, the diminution in the land value on account of drawing of High Voltage Electrical Line has to be determined. Considering these aspects, the Cognate Bench of this Court in Doddakka, supra has determined 30% of the market value of the area affected as reasonable compensation towards diminution value of the land of the farmer.
6. In the case of Devendrappa supra, the Cognate Bench of this Court has observed that the action of the Corporation erecting towers and high- tension wires over the petitioners’ lands without paying compensation for diminished value of the lands, amounts to violation of principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. There is no cavil on this legal proposition.
7. In the case of Karnataka Electricity Board and another supra, the Cognate Bench of this Court has held that restriction imposed upon the petitioners-land holders using their lands for either carrying on with their regular agricultural occupation, putting up construction or growing any trees or plants beyond 20 meters from HT lines has not been considered by the Corporation and the learned District Judge while determining the compensation towards diminution of land value. Hence, the matter has been remitted back to the learned District Judge with direction to re-examine the matter.
8. In the light of these judgments, the determination of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the loss of land appears to be arbitrary and unsustainable. The compensation has to be determined not towards the loss of land but towards the diminution of market value of the land utilized. Keeping this vital aspect in the mind, the learned District Judge is required to determine the compensation towards the diminution of value of land.
9. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside insofar as the determination of compensation towards loss of land at Rs.6,00,000/- and is remitted to the learned Principal District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi to re-consider the matter in the light of the observations made herein above. The parties are at liberty to lead any additional evidence, if any.
10. The learned Principal District Judge shall make an endeavour to decide the matter in an expedite manner.
Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.