IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.51675/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
GOVINDAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUDIHALLY VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577537 ... PETITIONER [BY SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADV. FOR SRI P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV.] AND:
1 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, JCR BADAVANE, 3RD CROSS (EAST) CHITRADURGA-577501 2 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, JCR BADAVANE, 3RD CROSS (EAST) CHITRADURGA-577501 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN CIVIL MISC. No.473/2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA BY AWARDING Rs.18 LAKHS ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 24% PER ANNUM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the judgment and award dated 16.10.2017 passed in Civil Misc.No.473/2016 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.95/1 P2, measuring to an extent of 4 acres 22 guntas situated at Gudihally village, Thalaku Hobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. The KPTCL has drawn high-tension electricity line over the land of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent – Authorities without evaluating the proper and reasonable value of the Sweet Lime Trees existed in the land of the petitioner had cut and removed the said standing trees awarding Rs.9,720/- towards 40 Sweet Lime Trees, Rs.21,515/- towards 1 Tamarind Tree and Rs.77,931/- towards onion crops. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached the learned District Judge in Civil Misc.No.473/2016 under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned Judge has passed the order dated 16.10.2017 awarding Rs.35,365/- towards the damages determining the value of the Sweet Lime per Tree at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards the installation of tower, the total compensation of Rs.1,05,622/- with current and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the cognate bench decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and others vs. P. Lakkappa Swamy and others in W.P.No.51886/2013 and connected matter would submit that this Court has awarded Rs.8,000/- to the sweet lime trees aged about 5 years old, whereas the compensation determined in the present case at Rs.2,000/- per tree towards Sweet Lime Trees is unreasonable. It is submitted that the price list submitted by the petitioner at Ex.P3 has not been properly appreciated. It is further argued that though the compensation of Rs.10,000/- was determined towards the damages for installing the tower, the same has not been considered while determining the total compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the order impugned.
5. The cognate bench of this Court in W.P.No.51886/2013 supra considering the Sweet Lime Trees which were aged about five years and the communication addressed by the Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture/Zilla Panchayat, Hiriyur, applying the multiplier of ‘10’ and deducting 30% towards cost of cultivation has arrived at a value of Sweet Lime Tree at Rs.8,000/-. The learned District Judge has determined the value of the Sweet Lime Tree at Rs.2,000/- in the present case on the premises that no evidence was placed before the Court regarding the age and yield of the Sweet Lime Trees. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the age of the trees was four years and evidence was lead in regarding the same. The testimony of the PW.1 supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner which remained unrebutted. The compensation awarded at Rs.10,000/- for installing the tower is also not taken into account while determining the total compensation. For the aforesaid reasons, the matter requires re-consideration by the learned District Judge.
6. Hence, the order impugned at Annexure – A dated 16.10.2017 is set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga to re-consider the matter in the light of the ruling of this Court in W.P.No.51886/2013 and connected matter (D.D.12.08.2014) as well as D.K. Thimmanna Vs. Executive Engineer passed in W.P.No.40344/2012 c/w W.P.No.40343/2012 (D.D. 31.07.2017). 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 make an endeavour to dispose of the matter in an expedite manner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR