- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 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. 22643 OF 2019 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: C. HORAKERAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O, VIJAPURA, LAXMISAGARA POST, CHITRADURGA TQ & DIST - 577 501. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, OFFICER OF KPTCL, 1ST FLOOR, J.C.R. BADAVANE, 3RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, OFFICER OF KPTCL, 1ST FLOOR, J.C.R. BADAVANE, 3RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA-577501 …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)] THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANENXURES - M AND N PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS NO.355/2015 ON 7.3.2017. 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 Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 07.03.2017 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Miscellaneous no.355/2015, this petition is filed. 2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde N, learned counsel for petitioner submitted petitioner was owner of 01 Acre 28 guntas in Sy.no.113/P3 and 4 guntas in Sy.no.112/2 of Lakshmi Sagara village, Hireguntunoor Hobli, Chitradurga District, over which respondents intended to draw 66 KV High Tension Power Line with one Tower installation on petitioner’s land, in year 2012- 13. It was submitted though petitioner objected to same, on 01.03.2013, respondents paid Rs.14,644/-, entered his land caused destruction to standing trees/crops and drew overhead transmission lines. 3. In order to seek compensation, petitioner filed Civil Misc.no.355/2015 under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, ('Act', for short) seeking determination of damages by District Judge, Chitradurga. In said petition, petitioner had stated that drawing of transmission lines was in middle of his land, destroying it's value, besides damage caused to trees and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 crops. It was submitted, though entry in Column no.8 in Ex.P14 - Record of Rights ('RoR') of Sy.no.112/2 produced as Annexure-D herein showed land was irrigated with source of water as Lake, while assessing compensation, learned District Judge considered it as dry land and awarded meager compensation. 4. It was submitted, total extent of land falling under corridor and tower area was 17.79 guntas with 4.35 guntas under tower. It was submitted in respect of land falling under towers, Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, passed orders at Annexures-K and L fixing compensation at Rs.2.25 Lakhs each in respect of 'A' Category towers, but in instant case, learned District Judge awarded only Rs.10,000/-, which was grossly inadequate and sought enhancement. 5. It was also submitted, since provisions of Act, merely provided for assessment of damages without providing mechanism for determination of same, best practices for determination of compensation under other enactments especially Land Acquisition Act, had to be adopted and reference to Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV') as market - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 value for determination of compensation was not justified. It was also contended that petitioner's lands were near to village and had non-agricultural potential. Therefore, diminution of value ought to be considered at 50%. On said ground, sought for allowing writ petition. 6. On other hand, Smt.Padma S. Uttur, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted, while passing impugned order, learned District Judge had observed that RoR produced did not indicate any crop information. Therefore, petitioner's claim about loss caused due to felling trees etc. would not justified. It was further submitted, SRGV at Ex.P12 produced by petitioner was for year 2016-17 and not for relevant year i.e. 2012-13, when lines were drawn. It was submitted, even orders of Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, produced as Annexures-K and L are for subsequent period and not applicable to petitioner. Therefore, determination of compensation by learned District Judge was justified. 7. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted contention that RoR did not reflect any crop would be contrary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 to Ex.P4 - Mahazar produced herein as Annexure-E. It was submitted that order passed by Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-K was dated 08.07.2014 and therefore relevant for purpose of petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition as well as records. 9. From above, it is seen that petitioner is assailing order determining damages for sustained by petitioner on account of respondents drawing High-Tension transmission lines over petitioner’s land. Perusal of impugned order would reveal that after traversing pleadings, learned District Judge framed points for consideration and also referred to material placed on record by parties. Since petition filed before District Judge under Section 16(3) is for determination of damages, burden to establishes occurrence of damages and material based on which petitioner would compute or monetize such damages would be squarely on petitioner. 10. In instant case, petitioner produced RoR of lands in question, intimation of KPTCL about intention to draw lines, Mahazar, Rough Sketch, Letter by Tahsildar, Photographs, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 SRGV for year 2016-17, apart from petitioner deposing as PW-1. Material placed on record by respondents is memo of particulars indicating tabulation of total extent of corridor and tower area utilized for installation. 11. While assessing compensation, learned District Judge adopted area falling under tower and corridor from Ex.R1. It noticed that Ex.P12 - SRGV for year 2016-17 are not for relevant period. It however adopted value of land at Rs.1,20,000/-. Though learned counsel for petitioner submits that since Ex.P14 - RoR of Sy.no.112/2 would show source of water as lake, same has to be considered as wetland and higher value adopted, learned District Judge was not justified in adopting value of dry land, it is seen from Ex.P5 that transmission lines do not pass-over Sy.no.112. Moreover, there is no valuation of lands for year 2013-14 when lines were drawn. Even before this Court relevant material is not produced. In absence of production of same, there would be no justification for holding determination by learned District Judge as erroneous. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 12. Secondly, insofar as claim for award of Rs.2,25,000/- for installation of tower, it is firstly seen that Annexures-K and L are issued on 08.07.2014 and 23.08.2016 i.e. later period and that too by Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, neither for relevant period nor pertain to relevant district and as such, would not constitute material to hold award by learned District Judge as contrary to law or material on record. 13. Insofar as contention that market value considered by learned District Judge on basis of SRGV was erroneous and principles for determination of market value under Land Acquisition Act, should be applied, it is seen that material produced by petitioner would not substantiate market value. Record of Rights, at best may contain nature of land, crops grown and source of water. As noticed by learned District Judge, RoR produced by petitioner do not indicate any crop. Only relevant material produced by petitioner for determination of value is SRGV. Therefore, it would not lie in mouth of petitioner to contend that basis for determination by learned District Judge is contrary to material on record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33088 WP No. 22643 of 2019 14. Since, computation of compensation by learned District Judge is not assailed on any arithmetical error or on any other ground, I do not find any good grounds to interfere with assessment, writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List no.1 Sl. no.17