ORDER : Petitioner has called in question the order dated 6.2.2016 in Mis. No.26/2014 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur. 2. The respondent is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.No.34/2 of Konanakallu village, Chelur hobli, Gubbi taluk, Tumkur district. The petitioner-KPTCL has drawn High tension electrical line over the land of the respondent, whereby three coconut trees and 461 areca nut trees were cut. KPTCL awarded compensation of Rs.9,44,661/-. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the learned District Judge by filing a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Act’ for short) claiming enhancement of compensation. Learned District Judge recorded the evidence of the parties. Respondent got examined as PW1 and marked 20 documents, whereas the petitioner examined one witness as RW1 and got marked one document as Ex.R1. On consideration of the evidence on record and after referring to the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act and also placing reliance on the Judgments holding the field on the point, learned District Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the land owner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,85,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner-KPTCL has preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel Smt.Shubha, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the land in question was not acquired by the Corporation, respondent-land owner continues to be the absolute owner of the land. Hence, the claim made by the land owner seeking enhancement of compensation does not warrant interference. Petitioner has got only three coconut trees. Learned District Judge applying the multiplier of 10, determined the price of a coconut at Rs.10/- per nut during the year 2013, which ought to have been at Rs.4/- by deducting the cost of cultivation. It is further argued that learned District Judge while computing the value of areca nut determined the cost of cultivation at Rs.20/- and Rs.100/- per coconut tree which ought to have been 30% in the light of catena of Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court. 461 areca nut trees were cut by the petitioner for drawing high tension line, as such the value of areca nut trees would be at Rs.8,71,290/-. The determination made by the learned District Judge as regards coconut and areca trees is on a higher side. 4. 461 areca nut trees were cut by the petitioner for drawing high tension line, as such the value of areca nut trees would be at Rs.8,71,290/-. The determination made by the learned District Judge as regards coconut and areca trees is on a higher side. 4. Though respondent is served, there is no representation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, it is manifestly clear that the learned District Judge calculated the value of coconut trees with price of coconut as Rs.10/- per nut during the year 2013. The cost of cultivation of Rs.100/per coconut tree has been deducted which is on the lower side. In terms of the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER V/S. DODDAKKA reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, the price of the coconut could be determined at Rs.5/- per nut giving margin to the cost incurred for cultivation and other expenses by taking the yield as 103 coconuts with multiplier of 10 for 2 coconut trees, the net value would be Rs.15,450/-. 6. As regards the value of areca nut trees, the learned District Judge has considered the cost of cultivation at Rs.20/- which required to be re-determined at 30% keeping in mind the ratio of the Judgment in Doddakka’s case (supra). 7. Accordingly the respondent-claimant is entitled for compensation as under: (i) c oconut t rees Rs. 15,450/- (ii) Areca nut trees Rs.8,71,290/- Total Rs.8,86,740/- with interest at 8% p.a. on 8,86,740/- payable from the date of drawing electrical line till the payment excluding the amount, if any already paid. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The respondent-claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit before the lower Court to the extent of entitlement. If the amount in deposit is lesser than the entitlement, petitioner-KPTCL is directed to deposit the balance amount. If the amount in deposit is in excess, petitioner-KPTCL is entitled for refund.