- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 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. 15837 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHAREDDY @ T HANUMANTHAREDDY, S/O SANNA THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HOSADADAGURU, DADAGURU POST, MOLAKALMURU TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL, MAJOR WORK DIVISION, KPTCL, SUB DIVISION-1, JCR EXTENSION, 3RD CROSS, (EAST) CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL, MAJOR WORK DIVISION, SUB-DIVISION-1, JCR EXTENSION, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 3RD CROSS, (EAST), CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CIVIL MIS.NO.491/2018 DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND G PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDL. DIST., AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO. 491/2018, DATED 04/07/2019 AND ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT AWARD COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION. 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:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 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 06.34 Acres, in Sy.no.67/1A 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.14 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 3. Petition was registered as Misc.no.491/2018 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 and 2. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by determining Rs.17,500/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 8% per annum. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 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 under Towers and Lines, but also surrounding area suffered from restricted user and therefore required to be considered while determining compensation. And when SRGV showed value of lands @ Rs.2,50,000/-, learned District Judge erred in taking Rs.1,00,000/- as market value. ` 10. It was thirdly submitted, fact that restriction of user was perennial was also not considered. Hence order was erroneous, calling for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 11. On other hand, Smt. Subha S, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 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 would be 30% of SRGV and as determination of compensation was not only taking area - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 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- F & G 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 at Ex.P.2 produced at Annexure-D would indicate value of land abutting to Vaderahalli road was Rs.2,50,000/- at Sl.no.4129. Ex.P.2 - SRGV for year 2018-19 and w.e.f. 01.01.2019. Perusal of Ex.P.2 - Annexure-D, reveals SRGV was for year 2018-19 w.e.f. 01.01.2019. Since drawing up of line in instant case was drawn earlier, said value would not be relevant. Under such circumstances, assessment by leaned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33184 WP No. 15837 of 2023 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.: 37