- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30037 WP No. 12743 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 12743 OF 2021 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MAJOR, WORK DIVISION, KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MAJOR WORK DIVISION-IV KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ASWATHAPPA D., ADVOCATE) AND: KEMPAIAH S/O KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O OF AASHRIHALLI VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI C N HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD.30.7.2019 PASSED CIVIL MISC NO.10014/2016 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE TIPTUR PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.7.2019 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC NO.10014/2016 BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE TIPTUR PRODUCED AS ANNXURE-A, ALLOW THE W.P. WITH COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30037 WP No. 12743 of 2021 THIS PETITION, 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 order dated 30.07.2019 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Civil Miscellaneous no.10014/2016, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri D. Aswathappa, learned counsel submitted this petition was by respondents no.1 and 2 in petition filed by respondent herein under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short), for determination of damages on account of drawing of 110/220 KV transmission line from K.B. Cross to Thimmanahalli passing over extent of 02 Acres 25 guntas of respondent's land bearing Sy.no.59/7 of Ashrihalli village, Kandikere Hobli, C.N. Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. 3. It was submitted that overhead electricity transmission lines were drawn during 2015 and extent of respondent's land falling under line was 22 metres in width. At time of installation, 27 Coconut trees, 06 Neem trees, 15 Arecanut trees, 100 Banana plants, 24 Survey trees and 18 Eucalyptus trees were cut. It was submitted that though - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30037 WP No. 12743 of 2021 petitioners had granted compensation of Rs.2,36,904/- towards same, respondent had filed application for determination of damages before learned District and Sessions Judge as provided under Section 16(3) of Act. 4. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: POINTS 1. Whether, compensation paid by the respondents to the petitioner in respect of damages suffered by him is appropriate and sufficient? 2. If not, what is the compensation the petitioner is entitled to? 3. What order? 5. Respondent examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. In support of claim for enhancement, it was submitted, learned District Judge while calculating compensation in respect of coconut trees adopted yield method. Taking Rs.10/- as value of 1 coconut and 125 as yield per coconut tree, applying capitalisation for 10 years, arrived at total amount of Rs.3,37,500/-. It was specifically submitted that deduction towards cultivation costs were not made. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30037 WP No. 12743 of 2021 Therefore, assessment was excessive and without any proper basis. On said ground sought for modification of order. 6. Heard, learned counsel for parties and perused writ petition record. 7. Respondent - land loser is served unrepresented. 8. As noted above, only ground for challenging assessment of compensation is insofar as coconut trees. There is no dispute about number of coconut trees cut down or their age/yield. Normally in case of income from cultivation or from fruit bearing trees, cultivation costs have to be deducted. Assessment by learned District Judge is without making deduction of cultivation costs. This Court in case of Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga v. Doddakka, reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, has held same manner of assessment of compensation while determining value of tree as done under provisions of Land Acquisition Enactments has to be applied. 9. It is seen that learned District Judge referred to said decision, but failed to apply ratio insofar as assessment of market value of trees. It is seen that in Doddakka's case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30037 WP No. 12743 of 2021 (supra), cost of cultivation was taken at 30%. Applying same, compensation towards 27 coconut trees would require to be reworked as (27 coconut trees X 125 coconuts X 10 multiplier X Rs.10/- per coconut = Rs.3,37,500/- (-) 30% = Rs.2,36,250/-). Thus there is reduction of compensation by Rs.1,01,250/-. Since there is no challenge as to assessment of compensation insofar as other trees and diminished value. I pass following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed in part. ii. Impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Civil Miscellaneous no.10014/2016 stands modified. iii. Award of Rs.5,88,500/- stands reduced to Rs.4,87,250/-. iv. Petitioners to deposit balance amount, if any, within four weeks from today. v. On deposit, same to be released in favour of respondent on proper identification. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41