IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.12132/2019(GM-KEB) BETWEEN:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KPTCL KOTHI THOPU ROAD TUMKURU TOWN TUMKURU TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT.) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD, KOTHI THOPU ROAD TUMKURU.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KOTHI THOPU ROAD TUMKURU.
... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE) AND SRI NATARAJU S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SADARAHALLY VILLAGE DABBEGHATTA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKURU-572227.
(SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:06.06.2015 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.10016/2014 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.06.2015 in Civil Misc. No.10016/2014 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur.
2. The respondent herein had filed Civil Misc.
Petition No.10016/2014 claiming to be the owner of Survey No.101/2 Sadarhally Village Dabbagatta Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, seeking for enhancement of compensation awarded by the petitioners for drawing 110/11 KV electrical transmission line through the respondent’s land which resulted in cutting of 6 coconut trees aged about 25 years, 4 neem trees aged about 12 years and 4 honge trees of 12 years.
3. The petitioners herein had appeared and contested the matter by filing objections.
4. The learned District Judge after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and award enhancing the compensation by Rs.46,798/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of installation of electrical transmission lines till the date of payment. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no cost of cultivation has been deducted while determining the compensation towards the cutting of trees which is a vital factor in quantifying the compensation. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court Executive Engineer, KPTCL Vs. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 Kar 677.
6. Though, the respondent duly served, there is no representation.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the learned District Judge has determined the compensation based on the evidence available on record. It is the main contention of the petitioners that no cost of cultivation is deducted while quantifying the compensation. Even if, such cost of cultivation requires to be deducted as contended by the learned counsel at 30%, the difference in the compensation enhanced is negligible. Moreover, no compensation is awarded towards diminution value of the land. In such circumstances, the learned judge has enhanced the total compensation by Rs.46,795/- with interest at 7% per annum, which cannot be held unjustifiable. The writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs