IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.39588/2016 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
NEELAMMA W/O LATE TYRA MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O KASTURIRANGAPPANAHALLI HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA, ADV.] AND:
1 . KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., BANGALORE REP BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2 . EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL, BRHUTH KAMAGARI DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 102.
3 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KPTCL, BRHUTH KAMAGARI DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 102. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI PADMA S. UTTUR, ADV.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SPECIAL AND 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC.63/2014 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION WHICH IS JUST AND REASONABLE AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 08.01.2016.
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 challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Special and 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.No.63/2014.
2. The respondents have determined and paid Rs.5,52,478/- as compensation towards destroying of trees/crops standing in the land of the petitioner for utilization of the same for installing 220 KV power line/tower. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner had filed claim petition before the Special and 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga claiming compensation of Rs.2,90,50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum towards the crop damages and diminution value of the land due to drawing of 220 K.V. high- tension wire in the land of the petitioner by the respondents in 4 acres of land. The learned District Judge was pleased to pass the order awarding Rs.4,63,668/- towards the compensation claimed with interest at 8% per annum. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the compensation awarded by the respondent – Authorities is meager. The learned District Judge failed to appreciate the material evidence placed on record inasmuch as the value of the tamarind trees and mango trees. No further enhancement is made by the learned District Judge on the damage caused to the petitioner due to the destruction of the fruit yielding trees. It was argued that the diminution value of the land determined is on the lower side.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents justifying the impugned order and award submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly determined the compensation towards the diminution value. In view of the amount of Rs.5,52,478/- awarded in full and final settlement towards the damage caused to the standing trees/crops, no further compensation has been awarded. Hence, no interference is warranted.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The basis for determining the compensation is the documents placed on record by the petitioner Exs.P2 to P6. It is not in dispute that Mango and Tamarind trees were grown and destroyed by the respondents in the land in question. Ex.P2 depicts the value of the land per acre as Rs.6,00,000/-. The total compensation awarded appears to be inadequate. In view of the aforesaid, the matter requires re- consideration by the learned District Judge.
7. Hence, the judgment and award impugned dated 08.01.2016 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Special and 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga to re-consider the matter. The parties are at liberty to lead any additional evidence. The learned District and Sessions Judge shall consider the same and take a decision in accordance with law keeping in mind the exhibits referred to above and the judgment of this Court in the case of The Executive Engineer, KPTCL vs. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, and 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) in an expedite manner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
PMR Sd/- JUDGE