IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.19540 OF 2014 (GM-KEB) & WRIT PETITION NOS.22131-132 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Corporate Office at Kaveri Bhavan Bengaluru – 560 009 Represented by its Director (Admn & HR) 2. Executive Engineer Bruhat Kamagari Vibhaga Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited R. Hanumanthappa Building P.B. Road Chitradurga – 577 501 3. Assistant Executive Engineer Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Sub Division-1 KSRTC Depot Road Chitradurga – 577 501 (By Sri. H.V. Devaraju, Advocate ….Petitioners For Sri. N. Krishnananda Gupta, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. R. Basavarajappa S/o Sri. Sannarudrappa Aged about 57 years Resident of Hulitotlu Village Aiamangala Hobli Chitradurga Taluk Chitradurga District – 577 501 2. Smt. R. M. Jalajakshi W/o late Sri. R. Mallikarjunaiah Aged about 59 years Resident of Hulitotlu Village Aiamangala Hobli Chitradurga Taluk Chitradurga District – 577 501 (Sri. M. T. Jagan Mohan, Advocate) ….Respondents These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-D dated 02.07.2013 passed in Misc. No.305/2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.
These writ petitions coming on for Hearing, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have challenged the judgment and award dated 02.07.2013 passed in Miscellaneous No.305/2011 on the file of the Additional District and Session Judge, Chitradurga.
2. The learned District and Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and award has awarded total compensation of `11,45,942/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing the petition till payment for the lands utilized by the petitioners for drawing up the high-tension Electrical lines and installation of tower in the lands of the respondents. Petitioners have been directed to pay compensation amount along with accrued interest.
3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners are two fold: Firstly, it was contended that the multiplier adopted by the learned District Judge is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘STATE OF HARYANA VS GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR.’ reported in 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 637 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL VS. DODDAKKA’ reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677. It was argued that appropriate multiplier would be 10 in the circumstances of the case. Secondly, it was contended that the diminution value of the land determined at 50% is not supported by any reasons. Moreover, the said determination at 50% is also not in conformity with the order of this Court in ‘DODDAKKA’ (Supra).
4. Learned counsel Sri. M. T. Jagan Mohan, appearing for the respondents justifying the impugned judgment and award would submit that the extent of land utilized by the petitioners for drawing up of High Tension Wire and installation of Tower in the lands of the respondent was disputed. No mahazar was placed on record to establish the factum of the exact extent of land utilized by the petitioners. Similarly considering the memo of calculation submitted by the petitioners, the compensation was determined. Reliance was placed on the order of this Court in the case of ‘D.K. THIMMANNA VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUTHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA AND ANOTHER’ passed in W.P.No.40344/2012 and connected matter disposed of on 31.07.2017.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Determination of the multiplier is exfacie contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR.’ (Supra). The cognate bench of this Court following the said judgment has held in Doddakka’s case as under:-
“18. It is thus evident that multiplier to be adopted will have to be same as multiplier adopted under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the value of the trees. As regards the nature and quantum of compensation to which the farmer is entitled, measurement of the land, distance between high voltage electrical line laid over the same, extent of the line and also whether only a small tract of land is used or the line is drawn right through the middle of the land and such other similar factors would be determinative for deciding the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Yet another important observation made by the Apex Court in Paragraph 10 is that, the value of the land would also become relevant factor and in a given case, the owner of land may be deprived of using the land for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.
19. xxxxxx 20. xxxxxx 21. One thing is certain that the multiplier to be adopted cannot be commensurate with the economic lifespan of the tree as has been done by the learned District Judge. He has used multiplier of 35 and has capitalized the net income to arrive at the amount of compensation payable. This approach is impermissible. In land acquisition cases, the value of the acquired land wherein fruit bearing trees are grown has been determined normally by applying 10 multiplier. The Apex Court in the matter of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 has held that when the market value of agricultural land is determined on the basis of the yield, then necessarily suitable multiplier deserved to be applied to award reasonable compensation. But under no circumstances, the Court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of land and as well as fruit bearing tree. In other words, the market value of the land cannot be determined twice over, once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield secured from the fruit bearing tree, which is impermissible. It is further laid down that once compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land, as distinct from the income, applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued and necessary compensation should be given. In the said case, the Apex Court has ruled that when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the tree or a plantation, 8 years multiplier shall be appropriate multiplier. For agricultural land, 12 years multiplier has been held to be suitable multiplier.
22. From a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of SHAIK IMAMBI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), TELUGU GANGA PROJECT (supra), it is clear that multiplier of 10 has been applied for determining the market value of the agricultural land including fruit bearing tree. Therefore, the multiplier to be adopted in a case like this cannot be more than 10. The Learned District Judge has made a mistake in applying multiplier of 35 in arriving at the value of the fruit bearing tree for the purpose of awarding compensation.”
6. As regards diminution of value described at 50% of the total market value of the land, it is pertinent to note that no reasons are forthcoming for the conclusions reached. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Competition Commission of India Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another reported in JT 2010 (10) SC 26 wherein it is observed thus;
“25. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all Courts and by virtue of Judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision”.
7. It is well settled legal principle that reason is the heart beat and soul of the order without which the order becomes lifeless. In the absence of reasons, it is hard to ascertain the basis on which the determination has been made by the learned District Judge. The cognate bench of this Court in Doddakka’s case, supra has determined the diminution value of the land at 30% of the market value of the land utilized.
8. For these reasons, the matter requires reconsideration by the learned District Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and award is set aside and the proceedings are restored to the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga to reconsider the same and pass a reasonable judgment in accordance with law in the light of the observations made herein. The parties are at liberty to lead any additional evidence, if any, in support of their claim. Appropriate decision shall be taken by the learned District Judge in an expedite manner.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-