- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 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. 16491 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: P LINGAPPA @ AGASARA NINGAPPA, S/O LATE PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST , R/ O PAKRUTHI VILLAGE, DADAGURU HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK , CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BAVANA, BANGALORE - 01. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, R HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 of 2022 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 SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, 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.842/2019, AND ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT. 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:33181 WP No. 16491 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 06.10 Acres, in Sy.nos.60/6A and 60/6B of Dadaguru 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, same not only cause damage/destruction of crops grown on petitioner's land but also led to acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at time of installation, respondents/authorities paid compensation only towards damage to crops etc. But not towards diminution of value of land. Therefore, petitioner filed petition for determination of compensation at Rs.31 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 of 2022 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.842/2019 and notices were issued. 4. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim. 5. 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? 6. Thereafter, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.3. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.26,685/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 6% per annum. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 of 2022 8. Aggrieved by said determination as being inadequate, petitioner is before this Court. 9. It was submitted, due to installation, petitioner was permanently prevented from cultivating land utilized for installation, which was akin to acquisition of land under provisions of The Right for Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, ('RFCTLARR Act', for short). Therefore, learned District Judge erred in taking Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV', for short) instead of market value of land while determining diminished value of land. Further not only land directly falling under Towers and Lines, but also surrounding area suffered from restricted user and therefore required to be considered while determining compensation. And when SGRV showed value of lands at Rs.2,50,000/-, learned District Judge, erred in taking Rs.1,00,000/-as market value. 10. It was submitted, fact that restriction of user was perennial was also not considered. Hence, impugned order was erroneous, calling for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 of 2022 11. On other hand, Smt Subha S, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 opposed petition. It was submitted, 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. 12. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. 13. It was submitted, acquisition of land under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and under RFCTLARR Act, differed from utilization of land for installation under provisions of Act. It was submitted, there was no deprivation of title or possession. 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. 14. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court had held diminished value of land at 30% of SRGV and as determination of compensation was not only taking area - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 of 2022 directly coming under installations, but also area under restricted user, there was no scope for interference. 15. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 16. 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?" 17. At outset, specific ground urged against Annexures - G and H are that, learned District Judge was not justified in taking market value of land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre even though SGRV extract - Ex.P.3 produced at Annexure-E would indicate value of land abutting to Vaderahalli road was Rs.2,50,000/- at Sl.no.4129. Ex.P.3 - SRGV for year 2018-19 and w.e.f. 01.01.2019. Since lines were drawn in 2017 said value would not apply. Perusal of Ex.P.3 - Annexure-E, reveals SRGV was for year 2018-19 w.e.f. 01.01.2019, and since drawing up of line in instant case was drawn earlier period, said value would not be relevant. Under such circumstances, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33181 WP No. 16491 of 2022 assessment by leaned District Judge taking value at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre cannot be held to be erroneous or unjustified. 18. Except above, other grounds were considered and rejected in W.P.no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025. Thus, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29