- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 16434 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: DURUGAPPA, S/OKOLLARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/ O VADDERAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR RAMPURA, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., BENGALURU, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BAVANA, BANGALORE - 01. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 R HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P B ROAD DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT), MAJOR WORKS, SUB DIVISION - 1, KPTCL OFFICE, KPTCL, 3RD CROSS (EAST), JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CIVIL MIS NO.32/2018 MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS NO.32/2018 DATED 3.11.2018 AND ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AS THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Challenging order passed by District Judge determining compensation under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short) payable for damages sustained by land- owner/petitioner due to installation of 400 KV Power Line/Towers over petitioner's lands, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of land measuring 04 Acres 11 guntas, in Sy.no.23/2 of Vaderahalli village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2017, respondents installed 400 KV power line/tower over petitioner's land. It was submitted said land was irrigated from Borewell and petitioner was growing cash crops. Thus, petitioner sustained not only damage/destruction of crops but also acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at time of installation, respondents/authorities paid Rs,30,000/- towards damage to crops etc. and not towards diminution of value of land. Therefore, petitioner filed application registered as Civil Misc.no.32/2018 and sought award of Rs.22 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 3. Respondents appeared and opposed same. 4. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: i) Whether petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the head decrease of value of land in view of installation of power line? ii) If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? iii) What order? 5. In trial, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.3, while respondents got marked Memo of particulars as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 6. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.16,562/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 6% per annum. 7. Aggrieved by inadequate compensation, petitioner is before this Court. 8. It was submitted, due to installation, petitioner was permanently prevented from cultivating land. Therefore, restriction was perennial and akin to acquisition of land under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and The Right for Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013. Such being case, learned District Judge erred in taking Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV', for short) instead of actual market value of land while determining diminished value of land. 9. It was submitted, not only land directly under Towers and Lines, but also surrounding area suffered from restricted user and required to be considered while determining compensation. It was submitted, in Ex.P.3 -SRGV value of dry lands was Rs.55,000/-, while that of irrigated lands was Rs.79,000/-. But, Ex.P2 - Borewell Certificate would establish that petitioner's land was irrigated. Therefore, assessment of compensation taking value of land at Rs.55,000/- was erroneous, called for interference. Even contention that land was abutting Bidar-Srirangapattana National Highway and therefore, NA potentiality was required to be considered, was also urged. On said grounds sought for allowing petition. 10. On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 opposed petition. It was submitted, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 installation of Towers/Line by respondent authorities was in accordance with law after payment of damages to crops/trees/constructions as applicable, which was admitted. 11. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. It was submitted, acquisition of land under provisions of Land Acquisition enactments, differed from utilization of land for installation under provisions of Act as there was no deprivation of title or possession. And even after installation, owners could cultivate lands. Restriction of user was partial. Therefore, provisions for assessment of compensation under Land Acquisition enactments would not apply. 12. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court had held diminished value of land would be 30% of SRGV. And as determination of damages was not only taking area directly coming under Lines/Tower, but also area under restricted user. On said grounds prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 14. In view of above, question that arises for consideration is: "Whether determination of compensation towards diminished value of land by District Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for interference?" 15. At outset, it is noted petitioner's contention for determination of compensation by referring to provisions of Land Acquisition Enactments has received consideration by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025 and rejected. Same would apply here also. 16. Though petitioner has contended that his land abuts National Highway, there is no material placed to substantiate same. Therefore, rejection thereof would not call for interference. 17. Insofar as claim of petitioner about her land being irrigated, petitioner relied on borewell certificate marked as Ex.P.2, and produced herein as Annexure-D, while Ex.P3 is extract of SRGV for year 2017-18. But, Ex.P.1-Record of right does not mention source of irrigation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33180 WP No. 16434 of 2022 18. Even otherwise, if nature of land is considered as irrigated for sake of argument, compensation would be : Rs.79,000/- per acre would be Rs.1,975/- per gunta. As per Ex.R1 total extent of corridor and tower area is 15.91 guntas. As held by Division Bench of this Court in WA no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025, diminution of value of land due to drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines is held to be at 30%. Thus compensation would be 30% of 1975/- x 15.91 = Rs.9,426/-, which would be only Rs.2,864/- more than assessed. 19. Moreover, learned District Judge has awarded Rs.10,000/- over and above amount (for area falling under Tower) without basis, same would off-set scope for interference. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28