IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

WRIT PETITION NO.53648/2016 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LTD.,

TUMAKURU-572103.

2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)

MAJOR WORKS DIVISION

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LTD.,

KOTHITHOPU ROAD

TUMAKURU TALUK AND

DISTRICT -572103.

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRIC)

NO.2, MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT

KARNATAKA POWER

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD.,

KOTHITHOPU ROAD

TUMAKURU TALUK AND

DISTRICT-572103.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADV. FOR

SRI.JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADV.)

2

AND:

SMT. THIMMAVVA

W/O LATE SRI SANJEEVIAH

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT BABIGANAHALLI

NITTUR HOBLI

GUBBI TALUK

TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572101.

…RESPONDENT

(V/O DT: 27.01.2021 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT H/S)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER DATED 06.02.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A IN MISC.PETITION

NO.150/2014, PASSED BY I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, TUMAKURU.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

The petitioners are before this Court assailing the

judgment dated 06.02.2016 in Misc.No.150/2015 on the file

of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, by

which, the respondent is awarded enhanced compensation for

drawing high tension power line over the respondent’s land.

3

2.

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the

petitioners. There is no representation for the respondent.

3.

The petitioners have drawn high tension power line over

the respondent’s land in Sy.No.5/5 situated at Babiganahalli

Village, Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. For

having drawn the high tension power line, the petitioners paid

total compensation of Rs.3,27,498/- to the respondent. The

respondent not being satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded by the petitioners, approached the

learned District Judge, Tumakuru, by filing an application

under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 (for

short ‘the Act’) in Misc.No.150/2014.

4.

The respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and got

marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The petitioners

herein examined R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1.

4

5.

The learned District Judge after assessing the material

on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,76,600/- with

interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Thus, there was enhancement

of compensation by a sum of Rs.1,49,102/-. Aggrieved by the

awarding of enhanced compensation, the petitioners are

before this Court in this writ petition.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

the learned District Judge committed an error in deducting

only Rs.10/- per Kg. and Rs.100/- per tree towards cost of

cultivation while awarding compensation towards areca nut

trees and coconut trees respectively. Learned counsel for the

petitioners would further point out that there is also

calculation mistake. Learned District Judge has taken

Rs.2,500/-

instead

of

Rs.250/-

while

calculating

compensation towards cost of cultivation of areca nut trees

and while calculating compensation to Coconut trees, instead

of Rs.1,400/- it is taken as Rs.14,000/-. Learned counsel

would also point out that the cost of cultivation always would

5

be 1/3^rd of the yield of a fruit bearing tree. Areca nut trees

are aged 20 years whereas Coconut trees are aged 28 years.

The learned District Judge in respect of areca nut trees

deducted only Rs.20/- per tree towards cost of cultivation

whereas it ought to have been 30% as held by this Court in

the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA

POWER

TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION

LIMITED,

CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER v/s DODDAKKA reported i