- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33191 WP No. 2234 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. 2234 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: D N HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O D. NAGALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KPTCL, BENGALURU REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVANA, ENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL MAJOR WORKS, R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33191 WP No. 2234 of 2024 3. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS KPTCL, SUB DIVISION -I, 3RD CROSS (EAST), JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC.318/2020 ANNEXURE-A DATED 16.11.2022 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION WHICH IS JUST AND REASONABLE. 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:33191 WP No. 2234 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 10 Acres 9 guntas, in Sy.no.102/1 of Devasamudra village, 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, 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.12 Lakhs with 12% interest. Same was registered as Civil Misc.no.318/2020. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33191 WP No. 2234 of 2024 3. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim. 4. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner has proved that value of the petition suit property has decreased due to drawing of 400 KV DC line over the petition suit property? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief as prayed for? 3. What order or award? 5. In trial, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 and P.2. On behalf of respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. 6. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by determining Rs.49,095/- as 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33191 WP No. 2234 of 2024 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33191 WP No. 2234 of 2024 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. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33191 WP No. 2234 of 2024 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.: 47