- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 4171 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. DODDATHIMMAPPA, S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGE 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 2. GURAPPA, S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 3. GOVINDAPPA, S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS, 4. THIMMAPPA, S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 5. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS, 6. ANAND, S/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE, TALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA, KPTCL, 400 KV, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR N G., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN MISC.72/2013 DATED 6.2.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND HENCE THE COMPENSATION TO RS 5,00,000/ACRE WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST PER ANNUM. THIS PETITION, 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:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 06.02.2014 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Misc.no.72/2013, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioners were owners of 4 Acres of land in Sy.no.140/2 situated at Kodihalli village, Talaku Hobli, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, over which respondent had proposed to draw 400 KV Double Circuit High Tension electricity transmission line with one tower installation. It was submitted, a sum of Rs.4758/- was paid to petitioner as compensation for damages caused to trees and crops standing on land and as well as for diminished value of land. Not satisfied with same, petitioner had filed Misc.no.72/2013 before Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It was submitted, petitioner had claimed compensation not only towards diminution value of land due to drawing of High Tension wire and installation of tower, but also damage caused to arecanut, coconut and teak plantation on land. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 3. On appearance, respondents opposed petition. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points: i) Whether the petitioners in Misc.no.72/2013 are entitled for compensation under the head, loss of diminution of value of their lands, when electricity lines were drawn? ii) If petitioners are entitled for compensation, what is the amount to be paid towards compensation? iii) To what order? 4. In support of his case, petitioner no.4 examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3, while respondents got marked memo of calculation with consent as Ex.R.1. 5. On consideration, learned District Judge determined diminution value of land at Rs.64,057/- and ordered payment of Rs.6,000/- towards installation of tower and granted total compensation of Rs.70,057/-. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition was filed. It was submitted insofar as diminution of value of land, Division Bench of this Court in W.A.no.1375/2024 disposed of 21.07.2025 had determined it to be at 30% as against 50% of guidance value of land. But, insofar as damages - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 caused due to felling of tress, petitioner was entitled for compensation. 6. It was submitted, District Magistrate at time of granting permission as per order at Annexures-B and C fixed compensation due to loss of trees. It was submitted there was no finding by learned District Judge on this aspect while passing impugned order. Hence, prayed for allowing petition. 7. Sri Vijayakumar NG learned counsel for respondent, on other hand, opposed petition. It was submitted order passed by learned District Judge impugned herein assailed by respondents in WP.no.20013/2014, was dismissed. However, WA no.1375/2024 filed against said order came to be allowed in presence of petitioners on 21.07.2025 reducing compensation. Apart from above, it was submitted order impugned herein was passed on 06.02.2014, whereas petition was filed in year 2021 without explanation for delay and laches. 8. It was also submitted pendency of said writ petition was not informed either at time of disposal of WP.no.20013/2014 or at time of writ appeal. Therefore, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 petitioner would not be entitled for any relief and sought for dismissal of petition. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 10. From above, it is seen petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by learned District Judge under Section 16(3) of Act. However, petition is filed 9 years after passing of order. On perusal of order dated 07.11.2023 passed in WP.no.20013/2014, it is seen petitioner herein had entered appearance. Despite same, present writ petition is filed belatedly without any iota of explanation for delay. That apart, pendency of writ petition is not brought to notice either to learned Single Judge or Division Bench. It is seen that grounds urged by respondents while assailing order impugned herein was on all counts and respondents succeeded in securing reduction. 11. In view of this Court having spelt out on legality of order, there would be no scope for entertaining or reexamining same. Thus, not only on ground of delay and laches, but also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32663 WP No. 4171 of 2022 on ground that it would not be open for re-examination in view of decision of this Court in W.A.no.1375/2024, this writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21