- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4511 WP No. 58212 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 58212 OF 2015 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A M LINGARAJU, S/O A R MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SRI A R MALLESHAPPA, S/O RUDRAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED BOTH ARE R/O GAJANUR VILLAGE - 577201, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009, REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577201, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N G VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4511 WP No. 58212 of 2015 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN CIVIL MISC.NO.47/2007, DTD.21.9.2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEX-A AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED, PERVERSE, CAPRICIOUS AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21/09/2015 in Civil Misc. No.47/2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Shivamogga. In terms of the said order, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 16(3) read with 10(d) of the Industrial Telegraphs Act, 1885 is dismissed. 3. The petitioners claim that respondents have laid high tension wire over the land bearing Sy.Nos.20 and 21 of Gajanur Village, Shivamogga Taluk. The petitioners further claimed that they had grown arecanut trees and in view of the laying of high tension wires, there is a direction by the respondent - Corporation to remove the arecanut. Thus, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4511 WP No. 58212 of 2015 petitioners claim value of the arecanut trees, loss of profit, and diminishing value of the land because of high tension wire over his land. 4. The respondent - Corporation objected to the said petition on the premise that high tension wire initially was laid in the year 1958 and later it was upgraded to 220 kilowatts in the year 2007. The respondent-Corporation contends that despite being aware that there is high tension wire over the land of the petitioners, and they are prohibited from planting the trees under the high tension wire, the petitioners at their risk and in contravention of the Act, have planted arecanut trees, as such they are not entitled for compensation. 5. Learned District Judge after considering the materials on record has rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in the previous round of litigation i.e., in writ Petition No.44036/2021 filed by the respondent - Corporation, this Court has held that the petitioners are entitled for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4511 WP No. 58212 of 2015 compensation for the diminishing value of the land beneath high tension wire. It is his submission that despite such observation, learned District Judge could not have dismissed the petition. It is further stated that even when the high tension wire was laid in the year 1958, compensation was not paid to the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation for the Arecanut trees as the Arecanut nut trees were planted recently after the high tension wire was laid way back in the year 1958. It is his further submission that despite the order to remove the Arecanut trees, the Arecanut trees are still very much there beneath the High Tension Wire and the petitioners are reaping the benefit, as such, they are not entitled for compensation. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised to the bar and perused the records. 9. It appears that compensation is not paid to the petitioners till today as in the earlier Writ Petition in paragraph 6, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has noticed that KPTCL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4511 WP No. 58212 of 2015 has not produced any records to show that the compensation is paid. Learned District Judge has not recorded the finding that the compensation is paid. Under these circumstances, the matter requires to be remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 10. It is also relevant to note that assuming that compensation is not paid since 1958, then the petitioner is entitled to compensation, for diminution of value of land (if it was not an areca garden before 1958). 11. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the Arecanut trees or not is also to be adjudicated. If finding is that the land was areca garden before 1958, then the petitioners are entitled for compensation for the Arecanut trees as well. If it is held that the land was converted into areca garden after 1958, then the petitioner is not entitled for compensation for the Arecanut trees, and only entitled to compensation on diminution of value of land. There has to be an adjudication on the above point by the Trial Court. 12. Hence the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4511 WP No. 58212 of 2015 ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Principal District Judge, Shivamogga in Civil Misc.No.47/2007 is set-aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. (iv) The Trial Court shall decide the petition on merits keeping in mind the observations made above. (v) It is further made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the claim of the petitioners and the respondents. (vi) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on *17.03.2025 without waiting for further notice from the Trial Court. (vii) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 *Corrected vide court order dated: 12.02.2025.