Sri.H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioners has

appeared through video conferencing.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3.

The facts are simply stated as under:-

It is stated that the claimant filed a petition in

Misc. No.162/2013 on the file of II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, claiming compensation along

with interest on the ground that he is the owner of the

land bearing No.204/1 situated at Lakkenahalli Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District.

3

It is stated that there were horticultural crops like

Mango, Lemon, Coconut, Tamarind, Arecanut, Champak,

Banana and Teak trees. The claimant has dug a borewell

for the purpose of irrigation to the fruit bearing trees. The

respondents have drawn High Tension Electric Line over

the land of the claimant as such, they have cut and

removed the trees in the said portion and thereby, they

have paid meager compensation amount of Rs.6,53,140/-

(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand One Hundred and

Forty only).

It is stated that the said amount is inadequate and

the compensation made is not in compliance to the

scientific technology and it is only the opinion of the

Horticultural Department and Forest Department and

therefore, sought for enhanced compensation.

It is averred that the Transmission Company on

receipt of the notice entered appearance and filed

objections. They stated that they have drawn 110/11 K.V.

4

overhead

Electricity

Transmission

Line

to

Bidare

Sub-Station through the claimant9s land and notice was

issued to the claimant 27.09.2012 requesting him to

remove the standing trees. Accordingly, the claimant has

cut and removed the trees from his land and requested to

pay the compensation.

It is also stated that the respondents have not

acquired a single bit of land thereby the respondents have

assessed the value of the trees as per the report of the

Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture and paid suitable

compensation of Rs.6,53,140/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty

Three Thousand One Hundred and Forty only). Hence,

they prayed for the dismissal of the petitioner.

The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and

produced 8 documents which were marked as Exhibits P-1

to P8. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduced

any oral and documentary evidence.

5

On the trial of action, the Court passed award

holding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of

Rs.18,73,500/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventy-Three

Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at 8% per

annum from the date of petition till realization.

Under these circumstances, the petitioners having

left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has

filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

4.

Sri.H.V.Devaraju,

learned

counsel

for

petitioners submits that the trial Court has erred in

awarding

compensation

of

Rs.18,73,500/-

(Rupees

Eighteen Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand Five Hundred

only) with interest at 8% per annum from the date of

petition till realization as against the compensation of

Rs.6,53,140/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand

One Hundred and Forty only).

6

Next, he submitted that the award of compensation

is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in THE

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL, CHITRADURGA AND

ANOTHER V. DODDAKKA - ILR 2015 KAR 677.

A further submission was made that 30% cost of

cultivation has to be deducted in so far as Mango and

Arecanut trees are concerned.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle the

award of the trial Court is to be modified taking into

consideration of the law laid down by this Court in

Doddakka's case.

5.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the

petitioners and perused the Annexures with care.

6.

The

short

question

which

arises

for

consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the

trial Court requires modification?

The facts are not in dispute.

7

While addressing ar