- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2020 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6762 OF 2020 (GM-KEB) IN WP No. 1829/2020 BETWEEN: MRS. CICILY CHANDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, W/O P. V. CHANDY, R/AT VATTAPALLIL HOUSE, POST HOSMAR - 574 128, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KAVOOR, MANGALORE - 576 001, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, WRIT OR DIRECTION, BY MODIFYING THE Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.20/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.20/2004. IN WP NO. 6762/2020 BETWEEN: PRAJEESH M. S., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O MR. SURENDRAN, R/AT MUNDUPALATHINKAL, NALLUR VILLAGE, NELLIKAR POST - 574 128 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI S.K. ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED KAVOOR, MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR WORKS DIVISION - 570031 ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.21/2004 ON THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PRAYED FOR MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.21/2004. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging common order dated 26.06.2019 passed by Principal District Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, in Miscellaneous Case nos.20/2004 and 21/2004, these writ petitions are filed. 2. Sri Sudesh Kumar Acharya, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were owners of 4 Acres of land in Sy.no.146/2A of Nooralbettu village, Karkala Taluk and Sy.no.253/4P2 of Nallur village, Karkala Taluk respectively, over which respondent had drawn 220/110 KV Multi Circuit Overhead Transmission Lines in February, 2003. It was submitted, lands were having rubber plantation which sustained severe damages at time of drawing overhead transmission lines. It was submitted that 150 rubber trees in Sy.no.146/2A and 60 trees in Sy.no.253/4P2 were cut. It was submitted that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 without granting any compensation, transmission lines were laid. Therefore, petitioners were constrained to approach District Court under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act,1885, ('Act', for short), for determination of damages. 3. On appearance respondent filed objections. Since both petitions were in respect of compensation for drawing overhead transmission lines, they were clubbed together and common points were framed for consideration. In trial, petitioners examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 in Misc. Case no.20/2004 and Exs.P1 to P15 in Misc. Case no.21/2004. Respondent examined its official as DW.1 but did not mark any documents. 4. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative and point no.2 by allowing petition holding petitioner in Misc. Case no.20/2004 entitled for compensation of Rs.7,05,000/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum and petitioner in Misc. Case no.21/2004 entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,85,300/- with interest at rate of 6% per - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 annum. Dissatisfied with same, petitioners had filed these petitions. 5. It was firstly submitted though in course of evidence, petitioners had produced sufficient material to establish price of rubber as notified by Rubber Board from years 2003 to 2011 marked as Exs.P4 to P13. But same were not considered. It was secondly submitted duration during which rubber plants would yield i.e. 27 years was not taken into account. Price of rubber as in year 2003 was taken into account and compensation determined. It was submitted that plants would yield 7 Kg of Grade-4 rubber and 3 Kg of scrap rubber. Though, learned District Judge considered yield as 7 Kg per annum, scrap rubber yield was not considered. Same called for enhancement. It was also contended that total number of trees cut in lands were 150 and 60 respectively and value of rubber wood/timber was not paid. On said grounds, sought for modification of order. 6. Smt.Shubha S., learned counsel for respondent on other hand opposed petition. At outset submitted that compensation determined by learned District Judge was on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 higher side mainly on ground that learned District Judge had failed to deduct any cultivation costs. It was further submitted that learned District Judge had also determined diminution of value of land for entire extent, instead of confining it to corridor and tower area. It was submitted that on re-computation, compensation determined would far exceed any scope for enhancement even on ground of value of scrap rubber. On above grounds sought for dismissal of petitions. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition as well as record. 8. From above point that would arise for consideration is : "Whether determination of compensation by learned District Judge suffers from error, calling for enhancement/modification?" 9. Answered same in negative for following reasons. i. Petitioners being owners of land over which respondents had drawn Overhead Transmission Lines in February, 2003 as pleaded in petition is not in dispute. Though - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 there is some dispute about number of trees cut from lands i.e. at 150 rubber trees in Sy.no.146/2A and 62 trees in Sy.no.253/4P2 as per pleadings and deposition, while passing impugned order, learned District Judge has held it to be 59 and 150 trees respectively as per mahazar produced by petitioners. ii. Perusal of records do not disclose any such mahazar or any material to determine exact number of trees. In absence, it would be appropriate to consider number of trees as 150 in Sy.no.146/2A and 62 in Sy.no.253/4P2 as per pleading. To substantiate value of rubber trees, petitioner has produced weekly value as depicted on website of Rubber Board at Kottayam, Kerala as per Exs.P5 to P13 which are for years 2004 to 2011. iii. Admittedly, overhead transmission lines are drawn in February, 2003. Therefore value of rubber during year 2003 has to be considered and not subsequent. Exs.P5 to P11 would therefore be irrelevant and rightly ignored. Value of rubber as per Ex.P4 during year 2003 is shown as Rs.57/- per Kg. Though petitioner has claimed that yield from each rubber plant would be 7 Kg of Grade-4 rubber and 3 Kg of scrap rubber, during - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 cross-examination he admits that Rubber Board has not disclosed or determined yield per tree. He has also admitted that there is no material to substantiate yield of scrap rubber. Under such circumstances, consideration of 7 Kg of rubber yield per tree by learned District Judge would be justified. iv. While calculating compensation, learned District Judge has applied 10 years capitalization. Same would be in terms of methodology for determining market value of land on yield method as under Land Acquisition enactments. Said methodology would apply regardless of number of years, trees would bear income. Therefore, 10 years capitalization would also be justified. v. Apart from above, while awarding compensation towards diminution of value of land, learned District Judge though held it at 25% of market value. Learned District Judge has taken note of escalation of market value from Rs.2,70,000/- as per Ex.P2 - Sale Deed and calculated it for entire land instead of confining it to corridor and tower area. Therefore petitioners appear to have been awarded more compensation than entitled. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37967 WP No. 1829 of 2020 C/W WP No. 6762 of 2020 vi. If recomputed, compensation insofar as rubber trees would be in Misc. Case no.20/2004 is Rs.57/- (price per kg) X 7 Kg (annual yield) X 150 (no. of trees) X 10 multiplier = Rs.5,98,500/-. Learned District Judge has awarded Rs.6,30,000/-. Insofar as Misc. Case no.21/2004, calculation would be Rs.57/- (price per kg) X 7 Kg (annual yield) X 62 (no. of trees) X 10 multiplier = Rs.2,47,380/-, whereas compensation awarded is Rs.2,47,800/-. vii. Apart from above, normally in case of determination of market value on yield method, cultivation cost requires to be deducted. Admittedly, cultivation cost is not deducted. Deduction of same would further reduce compensation than awarded by learned District Judge. Thus, there would be no scope for enhancement. Consequently, writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23