- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33178 WP No. 7859 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. 7859 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. BASAMMA, W/O LATE D. T. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O. HOSA DADAGURU VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. 2. SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE D. T. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. HOSA DADAGURU VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 001. 3. SHARADA, D/O. LATE D. T. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. OBALAPURA VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK. 4. YARRISWAMY @ V. T. YARRISWAMY S/O. LATE D. T. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. HOSA DADAGURU VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. 5. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE D. T. THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33178 WP No. 7859 of 2022 R/O. HOSA DADAGURU VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KPTCL REP BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB-DIVISION-1, KSRTC DEPOT, KPTCL, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., 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.56/2010. DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AS PER ANNX-D PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN C.MIS.NO.56/2010 DATED 01.08.2018.POST THIS W.P. FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING BEFORE SINGLE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2022. 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:33178 WP No. 7859 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 08.06 Acres, in Sy.no.67/1B of Dadaguru village, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2010- 11, respondents installed 400 KV power line/tower over petitioner's land. It was submitted, same not only caused 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 for damage to crops etc. and not towards diminution of value of land. And Record of Rights of land indicated that it was irrigated from Borewell. Therefore, he filed claim petition seeking compensation for damages. Same was registered as Civil Misc.no.56/2010. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33178 WP No. 7859 of 2022 3. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim. 4. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: "1. Whether petitioners are entitled for damages/compensation under the head decrease of the value of the land in view of the installation of power line/destruction of trees? 2. If petitioners are entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? 3. What order?" 5. In trial, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.9, while respondents got marked Exhibit R.1 to 3. 6. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.90,318/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 9% per annum. 7. Dissatisfied, petitioner is before this Court, on ground that petitioner was permanently prevented from cultivating land utilized for installation, which was akin to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33178 WP No. 7859 of 2022 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). Such being case, learned District Judge erred in taking Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV', for short) instead of 'actual market value' of land for determining diminished value of land. 8. It was submitted, not only land directly under Towers/Lines, but also surrounding area suffered from restricted user and therefore required to be considered while determining compensation. Even fact that such restriction was perennial was not considered. It was submitted, while calculating compensation, learned District Judge did not take into account market value of land as per Land Acquisition Act and erred in awarding adequate compensation. 9. It was lastly submitted, consideration of 30% of SRGV instead of 50% as diminished value of land was erroneous and sought for allowing petition. 10. Smt.Subha S, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 opposed petition. It was submitted, installation of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33178 WP No. 7859 of 2022 Towers/Line by respondent authorities was in accordance with law after payment of damages to crops/trees/constructions as applicable, which was admitted. It was submitted claim for determination of market value of land as per Land Acquisition Act was rejected. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. 11. It was submitted, acquisition of land under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under RFCTLARR Act, differed from utilization of land for drawing of Transmission Lines under provisions of Act, where there was no deprivation of title or possession. And even after installation, owners could cultivate lands. When restriction of user was partial, provisions for assessment of compensation under Land Acquisition enactments would not apply. 12. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court in WA no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025had held diminution of value of land has to be at 30% of SRGV. That apart, determination of compensation was for entire area under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33178 WP No. 7859 of 2022 restricted user. Under above circumstances, there is no scope for interference and sought dismissal of writ petition. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 14. In view of above, only point that would arise 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. Facts and circumstances of present case as well as contentions urged by respective learned counsel have received consideration by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 and rejected. Said findings would squarely apply to present case also. 16. Hence, for reasons stated in order passed by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24