- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 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. 3217 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: GANGANNA @ GODE GANGANNA S/O HONNURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF 1ST WARD, RAMPURA VILLAGE, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KPTCL REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B ROAD, DAVANAGER-577 002. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS KPTCL SUB DIVISION 1 3RD CROSS (EAST) JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.V.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CIVIL MISC.NO.255/2019 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION WHICH IS JUST AND REASONABLE WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.02.2023 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 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 14 Acres 2 guntas, in Sy.no.10/2 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. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.255/2019 and notices were issued. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 4. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim. 5. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: i) Whether petitioner has proved that due to drawing of transmission line over the petitioner suit property, he has sustained crop loss, which has resulted in diminution of land value? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? iii) What order or award? 6. In trial, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 and P2. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.89,791/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 8% per annum. 8. Aggrieved by said determination as being inadequate, petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 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:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 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:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 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 Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for interference?" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33189 WP No. 3217 of 2024 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 Highway, it is seen, no material was produced to establish that petitioner's land abutting National Highway. Hence, for above reasons, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48