- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 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. 5883 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: N.T. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O ALTE SANNA THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O OBALAPURA VILLAGE, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION, CORPORATION LTD., BENGALURU, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BAVANA, BANGALORE 01. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILIDNG, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 of 2022 3. ASISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT) MAJOR WORKS DIVSIION, SUB DIVISION-1 KPTCL OFFICE, KPTCL 3RD CRSOS (EAST), JCR CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS W.P. 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-D AND E PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MIS.NO.843/2019 DATED 12.03.2021. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 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 2.13 Acres in Sy.no.14/7 of Obalapura village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2019-20 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 petition for damages at Rs.11 Lakhs with 12% interest. Same was registered as Civil Misc.no.843/2019. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 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 petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the head decrease of the value of the land in view of the installation of power line/tower? 2. If petitioner is 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.4, while respondents got marked Exhibit R.1 with consent. 6. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.19,015/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 6% per annum. 7. Dissatisfied, petitioner is before this Court, on ground that petitioner was permanently prevented from - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 of 2022 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). 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. 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.Nayana Tara BG, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 opposed petition. It was submitted, installation of Towers/Line by respondent authorities was in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 of 2022 accordance with law after payment of damages to crops/trees/constructions as applicable, which was admitted. 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 had held diminution of value of land has to be at 30% of SRGV and determination of compensation was for entire area under restricted user. Under above circumstances, there was no scope for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought dismissal of writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33176 WP No. 5883 of 2022 13. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 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, this petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22