- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9605 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KOTHIOPU ROAD, TUMKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION - IV, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION, CORPORATION LTD., KOTHIOPU ROAD, TUMKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572214. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O BEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TAGGIHALI, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572216. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR D K, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 10.11.2022 PASSED BY THE VII Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 ADDL DIST JUDGE TUMAKURU IN CIVIL MISC NO.292/2020 ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 passed in Civil Misc.No.292/2020 by VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioners have laid High Tension Electric Lines over the property of the respondent. Since the compensation is required to be paid for such an act, petitioners assessed compensation on their own and paid Rs.15,15,143/-. Aggrieved by the said determination by the petitioners, respondent/owner raised a dispute in Civil Misc.No.292/2020 and sought higher compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 4. Parties led evidence before the Trial Court. Trial Court on considering the evidence on record by following the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL Vs. DODDAKKA1, which is subsequently upheld by the Division Bench, has determined the compensation as under :- "Misc.No.292/2020 is party allowed with costs. The Petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.10,62,750/- about diminution of land value with interest at 8% p.a. from 5/1/2018 till payment. Further, the Petitioner is also entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,23,600/- towards cutting of 12 coconut trees with interest at 8% p.a. from 5/1/2018 till payment. Further, the Petitioner is also entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,09,700/- towards cutting of 163 arecanut trees with interest at 8% p.a. from 5/1/2018 till payment. Respondent is directed to pay compensation amount along with accrued interest within sixty days from today. 1 W.P.No.39979/2013 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 The entire awarded compensation with interest shall be paid to the petitioner, after deposit. Draw an award accordingly." Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that compensation awarded by Trial Court is contrary to the law laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DODDAKKA'S case cited supra. It is his further submission that compensation of Rs.15,15,143/- paid by the petitioners is not deducted in the impugned order. He would submit that Trial Court has re-determined the compensation and has not passed an order to pay compensation over and above the compensation already paid by the petitioners, as such the impugned order, which has not taken into account the compensation paid by the petitioners, is unsustainable. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent filed a petition seeking enhancement of compensation in addition to what is awarded by the petitioners. It is his contention that petition is allowed granting additional compensation, as such there is no need for the Trial Court to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 deduct compensation already paid by the petitioners, thus he would urge that the petition has to be dismissed. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute that petitioners have laid High Tension Wire over the property of the respondent. The extent of the property is 65 guntas. Trial Court has assessed value of each gunta of land at Rs.54,500/- and that market value is arrived at by referring to Ex.P.7 document produced by the respondent in this petition. Since the ownership of the land is not lost and it is still with the respondent, Trial Court has considered diminution in the value of land, by deducting 30% on market value. Thus value is arrived at Rs.10,62,750/- towards diminution of land value. 9. Insofar as crop value is concerned, Trial Court has held that for loss of coconut trees which were 12 in number, respondent is entitled to Rs.1,23,600/-. Trial Court has taken the value of each coconut at Rs.10/-. 10. It is noticed that nothing is deducted towards cost of cultivation. As far as Arecanut trees are concerned, trial Court - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 has noticed that there are 163 Arecanut trees and yield per Arecanut tree is taken at 2 kgs per tree and the income per tree is taken at Rs.190/- and multiplier '10' is applied and compensation of Rs.3,09,700/- is determined as compensation for 163 arecanut trees. 11. Trial Court has also awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a., on the compensation determined from 05.01.2018 till the date of payment. 12. It is noticed from the impugned order that Trial Court has not taken into account compensation determined and paid by the petitioners. In fact Trial Court should have taken that aspect into account. 13. The compensation determined by Trial Court comes to Rs.14,96,050/- without interest. However, it is noticed that petitioners have awarded Rs.15,15,143/- and last instalment of compensation was paid on 24.12.2018. Thus what emerges is the compensation paid is in excess of the compensation determined by the Trial Court. 14. It is also noticed that in respect of the area occupied by the Tower, petitioners have awarded compensation of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 Rs.2,00,000/-. Trial Court has not awarded compensation in respect of the area occupied by the Tower. It is also noticed that compensation awarded by petitioners towards loss of Arecanut trees is in excess of, what is determined by the Trial Court and insofar as compensation relating to coconut trees is concerned, Trial Court has not deducted 30% towards cultivation expenses as held in DODDAKKA'S case. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view, that impugned order is not sustainable and has to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 16. However, learned counsel for petitioners makes a statement on instructions that petitioners are not insisting for refund of compensation amount already paid to respondent, though it is in excess of what is determined by Trial Court. The said submission is placed on record. 17. Hence I pass the following :- ORDER a. The petition is allowed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1709 WP No. 9605 of 2023 b. The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed in Civil Misc.No.292/2020 by VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside. c. It is made clear that petitioners shall not insist for refund of any amount from the respondent. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT:VN