- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.7184 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI N. AMAR BHEEMESH S/O B. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.505, SRI GANESH NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, SOMESHWARA BLOCK, HULIMAVU B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INFOSYS SOLAR PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, PLANT NO.44, HOSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-560100. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, INFOSYS SOLAR PARK PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, PLANT V.P.C.W. PLUS H-2, DANDIKERE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572139. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SMITHA R.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA IN MISC.NO.794/2019 DATED 30/10/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘G’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Miscellaneous No.794/2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.134/2 and 134/1 of Javanagondanahalli Village measuring 10 acres. It is contended that the petitioner had cultivated horticulture crops such as mango, coconut, arecanut, and lime tree. He filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 (‘the Act’ for short) seeking grant of compensation for the loss and damage caused by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 respondents while erecting high tension electrical towers and lines through his land. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in October 2018 installed 400/56 KV high tension tower and laid the electrical transmission lines across the petitioner’s property. It is stated that approximately an extent of 2 acres 80 guntas of the land was utilized for this purpose. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, while carrying out this work, the respondents cut down 10 coconut trees, 2 lemon trees and about 50 teak trees aged around five years. Accordingly, a compensation of `50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum towards the loss to the crops and for the portion of land used for laying high tension line. 5. The respondents filed objections inter alia, contending that, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 13.07.2018, permitted the respondents to erect electric poles and solar power lines. The Deputy Commissioner has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 determined compensation of `5,50,000/-, which was paid to the petitioner, who executed an undertaking not to raise further claims in respect of the said installation. 6. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P5. The respondents examined their authorized signatory as RW.1 and marked documents at Exs.R1 to R7. 7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court determined the market value of the land at `3,10,000/- per acre, and calculated 30% towards diminution of land value `93,000/- per acre. The per gunta value was assessed at `2,325/- and for the effected corridor area of 5.612 guntas, compensation was fixed at `13,047/-. The Trial Court also noted that the petitioner had claimed `5,50,000/- towards loss sustained on account of cutting trees, however, as per Exs.R5 to R7, the petitioner had already received the compensation for the tower, line, and trees. In the absence of any evidence - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 substantiating the petitioner’s claim of additional loss, the Trial Court awarded `13,000/- towards diminution in the value of land and `10,000/- towards erection of tower, both with interest @ 8% per annum. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exs.R5 to R7 merely show that the petitioner had agreed to receive the compensation, but had not actually received it. It is contended that the Trial Court, misread the documents and erroneously concluded that the respondents paid `5,50,000/-. It is further contended that the petitioner has suffered substantial damage to his horticulture crops and is therefore, entitled to enhanced compensation. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was paid compensation of `5,50,000/- under ‘Mucchalikes’ dated 08.03.2018, 27.03.2018 and 10.05.2018 and that the petitioner’s suppression of this fact disentitles him to further relief. It - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 is argued that there are no evidence to show that the standing horticultural crops, and that the compensation already paid included the crop trees and diminution in land value. Accordingly, the impugned order does not call for interference. 10. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 11. Exs.R5 to R7, which are also produced by the petitioner at Annexures-G, H and J to this writ petition, clearly establish that the petitioner received compensation of `5,50,000/-. The contention regarding non-receipt of the said amount is raised for the first time in this writ petition and was not urged before the Trial Court. 12. The Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, rightly concluded that the petitioner had received of `5,50,000/-, and was further entitled to `23,100/- with interest at 8% per annum towards diminution in land value and tower erection. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42773 WP No. 7184 of 2024 manner in which the Trial Court had considered the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and accordingly this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The impugned order passed in Miscellaneous No.794/2019 dated 30.10.2023 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga stands affirmed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41