IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.852/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN :
1 . SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KOTHITHIPU ROAD TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 2 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT KOTHI THOPU ROAD, TUMKURU 3 . ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) NO.2, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KOTHI THOPU ROAD TUMKURU TOWN ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADV.) AND :
SRI L.T.SHADAKSHARAPPA S/O THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT LAKKENAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR-57221 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHANTHARAJ K., ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2016 IN MIS.NO.36/2014 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this court challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Misc.No.36/2014 dated 6.2.2016 whereby total compensation of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till payment has been awarded for the utilization of the lands by the KPTCL in drawing high tension circuit electricity lines.
2. The respondent-claimant is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.220/1 of Lakenahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District. On utilization of the said land for drawing high tension circuit electricity line, the KPTCL has paid an amount of Rs.3,44,454/- towards compensation for causing damages due to the cutting of trees.
3. Being aggrieved, the claimant had preferred Misc.No.36/2014 before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,62,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till payment. Being aggrieved, KPTCL is before this Court mainly on the ground that the cost of cultivation of 50% of the market value of the land determined by the learned District Judge is on the higher side. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Executive Engineer, KPTCL Vs. Doddakka reported in ILR 2015 Kar 677.
4. Learned counsel for the KPTCL would submit that the cost of cultivation determined at 50% has to be reduced to 30% in conformity with the order of this Court in Doddakka’s case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no diminution value of land has been awarded by the learned District Judge. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in the case of D.K.Thimmanna Vs. Executive Engineer passed in W.P.No.40344/12 c/w W.P.No.40343/12 (D.D.31.7.2017).
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is pertinent to note that no reasons have been recorded by the learned District Judge to determine the cost of cultivation of the land at 50%. Similarly it would be appropriate for the learned District Judge to award compensation considering the parameters set down by this court in D.K.Thimmanna’s case, supra.
7. In the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned District Judge to re-consider the matter in the light of the orders of this Court in Doddakka and Thimmanna’s case referred to above. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. Parties are at liberty to lead evidence, if any. The learned District Judge shall consider the matter afresh and take a decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove, in accordance with law in an expedite manner.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: