- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB WA No. 1302 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1302 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572214 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION- IV KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572214 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJU H V, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB WA No. 1302 of 2024 AND: NANJUNDAPPA S/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O PANKAJANAHALLI VILLAGE SHETTIKEREHOBLI, C N HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572111 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE INSTANT WRIT APPEAL AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP No-9724/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP BEARING No-9724/2021 AS PRAYED FOR AND GRANT OTHER SUCH FURTHER RELIEFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9724 of 2021 (GM-KEB). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB WA No. 1302 of 2024 2. The appellants had preferred the said petition impugning 6the judgment dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, in Civil.Misc.No.10036 of 2016. The respondent had filed the said petition under Section 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, r/w Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the appellants in respect of the respondent’s land. 3. The respondent is the owner of land falling in Sy.No.99/1A2 at Pankajanahalli Village, Shettikere Hobli, C.N. Halli Taluk, Tumakuru District. The appellants had drawn an electricity transmission line from K.B. Cross to Thimmanahalli tapping point, which passed through the land owned by the respondent. The respondent had cultivated trees on the said land and was entitled to compensation for the same. 4. The appellants determined the compensation at `1,10,031/-. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation to `2,47,700/-. The compensation determined by the learned District Judge for various types of trees is as under:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB WA No. 1302 of 2024 1. 25 Coconut trees `2,12,500/- 2. 01 Jali trees ` 4,000/- 3. 08 Neem trees ` 28,000/- 4. 04 Neem trees ` 3,200/- TOTAL `2,47,700/- 5. The appellants' grievance is confined to the value of the coconut trees, which was determined at `2,12,500/-. 6. A plain reading of the order dated 24.07.2019, which the appellants impugned in the writ petition, indicates that the value of coconut trees was determined on the assumption that each tree would yield 125 coconuts annually and each coconut would yield a value of `10/-. A multiplier of '10' was used, and the value of 17 coconut trees was determined as `2,12,500/- (17 trees X125 coconuts X 10 X `10/-) 7. The appellants argue that, although the learned Additional District Judge assumed the value of the coconuts at `10/-, no deductions were made for the cost of cultivation. They state that 30% of the coconut's value should have been deducted as cultivation costs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB WA No. 1302 of 2024 8. It is relevant to note that the learned Additional District Judge referred to a decision of the Court in The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and Another Vs. Doddakka1 for determining the compensation value of coconut trees. In the said case, the cost of cultivation was taken as 30%, and the value of the coconuts arrived at after deduction was determined at `5/-. Following the same analogy, the learned Additional District Judge determined the value of a coconut at `10/-, taking into account the inflation over the years. The learned Additional District Judge has not specifically mentioned a deduction of 30%, however, considering that the value was determined by referring to the value determined in Doddakka's case, where 30% of cultivation costs had been adjusted prior to determination of the value, it is apparent that the value of `10/-, determined by the learned Additional District Judge is post the allowance for costs for cultivation. 9. The learned Single Judge also examined the method used to determine compensation and concluded that the price of coconut, as assumed, was, after allowance for cultivation costs. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appellants' writ petition as 1 ILR 2015 KAR 677 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10824-DB WA No. 1302 of 2024 without merit. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4