IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.12686 OF 2017 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
MARAPPA S/O.DASANNA @ DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KUNIKERE VILLAGE BEERENAHALLY POST HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 129 (BY SRI.JAGAN MOHAN M.T.) AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.P.T.C.L. BRUHAT KENGERI DIVISION KOLHITOPU ROAD, OLD Z.P. OFFICE TUMKUR-572 101 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.P.T.C.L. BRUHAT KENGERI DIVISION KOLHITOPU ROAD, OLD Z.P.OFFICE TUMKUR-572 101 (BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.) … PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD: 29.06.2016 IN CIVIL MISC. NO. 77/2015 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND MODIFY THE SAME VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of order passed in Civil Misc. No.77/2015 dated 29.6.2016 on the file of Special 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. Petitioner’s grievance is relating to award of appropriate compensation in view of utilization of petitioner’s property by respondent – KPTCL for installation high power wire over the property of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial Court has committed an error in determining the compensation of a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- per acre and in view of installation of power line, 30% of the value of the property is decreased. Such decision has been taken pursuant to the decision of this Court reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 245, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Vs. A.P. Manoharachar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from Ex.P3 to demonstrate that determination of Rs.3,90,000/- per acre is contrary to Ex.P3. Petitioner is entitled to @ Rs.4,20,000/- per acre. In this regard, petitioner has not appraised before the Court below or in the present petition that petitioners are growing pomegranate, Mosambi and papaya etc., which are horticulture crops. On the other hand, petitioners are growing areca nut and other crops which are not relating to horticulture crops. Thus, Sub Registrar has distinguished between horticulture crops and other crops and the same has not been taken into consideration by the Court below. Petitioner has not apprised this Court by producing any material so as to claim Rs.4,20,000/- per acre.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Ex.R2 has not been taken into consideration by the Court below. Ex.R2 the fixation of price for areca nut for six years it has been shown as Rs.3725.1752 multiplied by 565 whereas, for four years it has been shows as 421.36 multiplied by 35. This calculation is arbitrary in view of the age of the trees. Perusal of order dated 29.6.2016 passed in Civil Misc. No.77/2015 there is no reference in respect of Ex.R2. Thus, Court below has committed an error in not taking into consideration of Ex.R2. Accordingly, order dated 29.6.2016 passed in Civil Misc. No.77/2015 is set aside and matter is remanded to the Court below for taking into Ex.R2 for fresh consideration. Parties are hereby directed to appear on 28.8.2019. Court below is directed to decide the aforesaid issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE BS