- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5362 WP No. 8037 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8037 OF 2014 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: P. K. SUDHAKAR, S/O LATE M. P. KALE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O PANNE DODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) TENDERING & PROCUREMENT, KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-9. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRIAL) PROJECTS DIVISION, KPTCL, N. R. MOHALLA, MYSORE-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA IN MISC. NO.20/2009 DATED 21.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5362 WP No. 8037 of 2014 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 21.11.2013 in Misc.No.20/2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Mandya. 2. The petitioner is before this Court claiming compensation on the premise that high tension wire is laid on the property of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation and the respondents objected to the same. The trial Court after recording the evidence has concluded that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,686/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the payment of entire amount. 3. The respondent-Corporation has deposited the amount awarded by the trial Court. It is not forthcoming as to whether the amount is kept in Bank deposit. In any case, since the respondent-Corporation is not aggrieved by the order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5362 WP No. 8037 of 2014 passed by the trial Court. The amount in deposit along with interest, if any, shall be released in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the area over which the high tension wire is laid comes to 10098 square feet. It is his further contention that the land is converted for non agricultural use. Thus, he would contend that Rs.20/- per square feet value calculated by the trial Court is on lower side and Rs.20/- per square feet is only the guidance value and not the actual market value. Thus, he would contend that the matter has to be remitted to trial Court for fresh consideration. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation on the other hand would contend that the valuation arrived at by the trial Court is based on the documents produced by the petitioner himself, as such, petitioner has no voice to say that the compensation determined is on lower side. He would also contend that since no crops were there when the high tension wire is laid, there is no question of awarding any compensation for loss of crop. The trial Court is justified in assessing the market value based on the documents produced - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5362 WP No. 8037 of 2014 by the petitioner, which is the valuation certificate issued by the sub-registrar. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute that the land in question was converted for non-agricultural use. Even the extent of land over which the high tension wire is laid is also not in dispute. The only dispute is relating to the market value. After going through the order passed by the trial Court, it is noticed that trial Court has taken Rs.20/- per square feet as the market value to determine the compensation. On going through the impugned order, it is noticed that the trial Court has proceeded as if Rs.20/- per square feet being the guidance value as a thumb rule would be the market value. That may not be the situation in every case. The market value at times will be higher than the guidance value and at times, it may be lower than the guidance value. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial Court. It is also noticed that the parties have not led any evidence as to the actual market value of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5362 WP No. 8037 of 2014 property, which may be much more than Rs.20/- or less than Rs.20/-. 8. Under these circumstances, the matter requires to be remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration to enable both the parties to lead evidence on the actual market value of the property. The trial Court considering the evidence to be placed on record by both the parties shall determine the actual market value and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by I Additional District Judge, Mandya, in Misc.No.20/2009 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (iv) The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 10.03.2025 without awaiting any further notice from the trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5362 WP No. 8037 of 2014 (v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any thing on the merits of the matter. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25