- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33188 WP No. 16752 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. 16752 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SMT. GANGAMMA @ R. GANGAMMA, W/O BASANNA, D/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HOSADADAGURU, DADAGURU POST, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, SUB DIVISION-1, JCR EXTENSION, 3RD CROSS, (EAST), CHITRADURGA - 577 001. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB DIVISION-1, JCR EXTENSION, 3RD CROSS, (EAST) CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33188 WP No. 16752 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H RESPECTIVELY DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA DATED 12.2.2020 IN MISC.NO.308/2018, AND ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT. THIS 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 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 Acres 1 gunta, in Re.Sy.no.35/2P1 of Dadaguru village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during 2017, 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, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33188 WP No. 16752 of 2023 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, she filed petition for damages at Rs.20 Lakhs with 24% interest. Same was registered as Civil Misc.no.308/2018. 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 of decrease of value of the land in view of the installation of power line/tower? 2. If the 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.3. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 6. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative and point no.2 by determining Rs.26,000/- as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33188 WP No. 16752 of 2023 compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 8% 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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33188 WP No. 16752 of 2023 10. 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33188 WP No. 16752 of 2023 for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought dismissal of writ petition. 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. 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 AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40