- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 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. 10355 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: P N GOPALAREDDY, S/O P.G. NAGARAJA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BAVAN BENGALURU 01. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, R HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING P.B. ROAD, DAVANGERE - 577 002. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 of 2022 3. ENGINEER (ELECT) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB DIVISION 1 KPTCL OFFICE KPTCL, 3rd CROSS (EAST) JCR CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CIVIL MISC.NO.533/2018.MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H RESPECTIVELY DATED 04.7.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO.533/2018 BY ENHANCING THE DAMAGES. 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:33179 WP No. 10355 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 34 guntas, in Sy.no.20/21 of Obalapura village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2017, respondents installed 400 KV Power Line/Tower over petitioner's land causing damage/destruction of crops but also acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at time of installation, respondents/authorities paid compensation only towards damage to crops etc. Therefore, he filed petition for determination of compensation at Rs.4,50,000/- per Acre with interest at 12% per annum. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.533/2018 and notices were issued. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 of 2022 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/tower? ii) If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? iii) What order? 6. In trial, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 and P2. Ex.R.1 was got marked on behalf of respondents. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.9,973/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 6% per annum. 8. Aggrieved by said determination as being inadequate, petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 of 2022 9. It was firstly 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. 10. It was secondly submitted, fact that 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. 11. It was thirdly submitted, fact that restriction of user was perennial was also not considered. 12. It was lastly submitted, Record of Rights produced along with valuation certificate would establish that petitioner's land was bagayat land and therefore, assessment by taking SRGV for dry land was erroneous. It was further submitted, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 of 2022 Petitioner's land was abutting National Highway and compensation was determined without noting NA potentiality. On above grounds, impugned award called for interference. 13. Sri HV Devaraju, 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. 14. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. 15. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 of 2022 16. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court had held diminished value of land would be at 30% of SRGV. And as determination of compensation was not only taking area directly coming under installations, but also area under restricted user, there was no scope for interference. 17. Insofar as claim of petitioner about land being bagayat land, it was submitted while calculating compensation, learned District Judge had adopted value of Tari or Wet land, which was only Rs.1,000/- lower than SRGV for bagayat land and therefore, difference in total compensation would be negligible. Under above circumstances, there was no scope for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought dismissal of writ petition. 18. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 19. In view of above, only point that would arise for consideration is: "Whether determination of compensation towards diminished value of land by District - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33179 WP No. 10355 of 2022 Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for interference?" 20. Facts and circumstances of present case as well as contentions urged by respective learned counsel have received consideration while dismissing W.P.no.5894/2022. Said findings would squarely apply to present case also. 21. Insofar as land abutting National High, it is seen, no material was produced to establish that petitioner's land abutting National Highway and Dishaank-Application Screen- Shot produced as Annexure - E, herein would also not establish same. 22. Hence, for above reasons, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25