IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1884 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL )

MAJOR WORKS DIVISION K.P.T.C.L. KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DIST

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

MAJOR WORKS DIVISION IV K.P.T.C.L. KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DIST …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by (BY SRI SURESH V., ADVOCATE)

SRIDEV I S Location: AND:

High Court of Karnataka

1. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O. NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O. MARASANDRA VILLGE KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TQ TUMAKURU DIST, TUMKUR - 572 114 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 6756/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING THE PASSED IN MIS No. 10024/2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application - I.A.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition being W.P.No.6756/2020 (GM-KEB), whereby the same was dismissed. The appellant filed the said writ petition challenging the award dated 11.12.2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur [The Trial Court], whereby the compensation payable to the respondent was enhanced to Rs.19,22,984/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

3. The respondent at the material time, was the owner of a land falling in Survey No. 64/2P1 located in Marasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk and had cultivated coconut and neem trees. There were fully grown coconut and neem trees standing on the said land. The appellant had drawn 110/11 KV electricity transmission lines over the said land, from K.B. cross to Thimmanahalli tapping point, and the said line passed through the subject land, spanning a width of 22 metres. The appellants had cut and removed 41 coconut trees aged 8 years and 44 neem trees aged 18 years. The compensation for the said trees was determined at Rs.57,116/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said determination of compensation, respondent had filed a petition under Section 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court had found that the compensation for standing trees was not determined on the basis of the settled principles. The said petition being Civil Miscellaneous No.10024/2015 was disposed off by an order dated 11.12.2018. The learned Trial Court had proceeded to determine the value of the trees. The value of the coconut trees was determined on the basis that each tree would yield 180 coconuts and the price of each coconut was determined at Rs.10/-. The learned Trial Court, thus, computed the annual income from a coconut tree would be Rs.1,800/-. Additionally, the respondent would also receive income from coconuts, such as coconut husk, flesh, shell and leaves, which was computed at Rs.500/- per year. Thus, the aggregate annual income from the coconut trees was determined at Rs.2,300/- per year. After deducting the cost of cultivation at the rate of 30%, the net annual income was computed at Rs.1,610/-. The value of total income per coconut tree was determined by applying the multiplier of 10 on the basis of the life of the coconut tree, which was estimated to be 60 to 70 years (amounting to Rs.16,100/- per tree). Since there were 41 coconut