- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48923-DB WA No. 1884 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH 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 (BY SRI SURESH V., ADVOCATE) AND: 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) Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48923-DB WA No. 1884 of 2024 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48923-DB WA No. 1884 of 2024 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48923-DB WA No. 1884 of 2024 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 trees standing on the subject land, the total compensation for the same was determined at Rs.6,60,100/-. Similarly, value of the neem trees was determined at Rs.15,000/- per tree. The total value of 44 neem trees was computed by the learned Trial Court at Rs.13,20,000/-. Since there is no dispute that there were 44 neem trees standing on the subject land, there is an apparent error in computing the said value. The value of 44 neem trees would work out to Rs.6,60,000/- and not Rs.13,20,000/-, as was computed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48923-DB WA No. 1884 of 2024 the learned Trial Court. In view of the said error, the total compensation for the standing trees was enhanced from Rs.57,116/- to Rs.19,22,984/-. 5. The appellant assailed the order dated 11.12.2018 in WP.No.6756/2020, which was dismissed by the impugned order. However, the aforesaid computation error was rectified. 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the value of the neem trees ought to have been accepted at Rs.13,000/- and not Rs.15,000/-. It was further stated that the yield of the coconut trees was required to be taken at 150 coconuts per tree, instead of 180. 7. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. It is apparent that the appellant had failed to establish that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is arbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise passed in disregard to the settled principles of law. The learned Trial Court had accepted the yield of the coconut tree as 180 coconuts, as the yield of the coconuts in that region was higher. Thus, the decision could not be faulted. The calculation of the value of the neem tree was also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48923-DB WA No. 1884 of 2024 made on the basis of the valuation of the Range Forest Officer pertaining to period 2001 to 2002 and also bearing in mind that the case was filed during the year 2014-15. Given the limited scope of examination, the order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be accepted as contrary to law or in disregard to the settled principles. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the said order in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. We find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the writ petition. Insofar as the calculation error is concerned, as noted above, the learned Single Judge had accepted the same and had accordingly reduced the compensation from Rs.13,20,000/- to Rs.6,60,000/-. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13