- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 23770 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE, REP BY M.D. KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB-DIVISION 1, JCR BADAVANA, 3RD CROSS , 1ST FLOOR, CHITRADURGA TOWN. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE) AND: G. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE G. KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUNABEVU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 517. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW WRIT PETITION QUASHING ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS NO.177/2021 BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (ANNEXURE-A) 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 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 01.03.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 at Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed. 2. Smt.S Shubha, learned counsel for petitioners submitted during 2005-06, petitioners had drawn 220/66/11 KV Overhead Transmission Line over 6 Acres and 23 Guntas of land in Sy.no.20/2A4, situated at Kunabevu village, Turuvanuru Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District, belonging to respondent. At that time, Tower occupying 40 X 40 ft. was installed. During year 2018, petitioners upgraded transmission lines to 400 KV Overhead Transmission Lines. At that time, an order dated 04.12.2018 was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 and respondent was paid total sum of Rs.2,86,499.73/-. Despite same, respondent filed petition before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short) for re- computation of damages. Said petition was filed on premise that petitioner was growing groundnut, cotton, onion, sunflower and had intended to grow arecanut, coconut, banana, teak, jackfruit and other fruit bearing trees with irrigation facility from borewell and claimed that value of land had increased to Rs.5 Lakhs per acre and petitioners had paid Rs.50,000/- only as interim compensation and laid lines. 3. On appearance, petitioners had opposed claim petition. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following issues: "1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the head decrease of the value of the land in view of the installation of power line? 2. If the petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? 3. What order?" 4. In trial, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and got marked copy of Record of Rights (RoR), photographs and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 Sub-Registrar Guidance Value (SRGV) as Exhibits P1 to P3. Petitioners examined its official as RW.1 and got marked copy of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, and memo of calculation as Exhibits R1 and R2. 5. On consideration, learned District Judge allowed petition and directed petitioners to pay additional compensation of Rs.47,745/-. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed. 6. It was submitted, at time of consideration of petitioners' petition under Section 16(1) of Act for removal of obstruction, Deputy Commissioner had directed payment of compensation towards damages in following manner: a) Firstly, for payment of compensation of Rs.1,03,500/- in respect of 'A' Tower; and b) Secondly, Rs.2,30,000/- per acre towards diminished value of land considered at 100%. 7. It was submitted, in terms of said directions, petitioners had paid entire value to respondent. Under such circumstances, determination of further compensation by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 learned District Judge was contrary to law and sought for quashing of same. 8. Respondent-owner of land has remained served unrepresented. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 10. At outset, it is seen that petitioners' grievance against order passed by learned District Judge is that when petitioners had paid compensation fixed by Deputy Commissioner in course of proceedings under Section 16(1) of Act, which included diminution of value of land, assessment of said compensation once again and awarding same over and above compensation determined by Deputy Commissioner amounted to double compensation and sought for allowing writ petition. 11. Bare perusal of Exhibit R.1-order passed by Deputy Commissioner on 04.12.2018 would reveal that Deputy Commissioner had determined quantum of compensation to be paid at Rs.1,03,500/- in respect of 'A' Tower and Rs.2,30,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 per acre in respect of diminished value of land. While passing impugned order, learned District Judge has specifically observed that respondent did not produce any document to show that petitioners had caused damages to crops in his land. Having made such observation, learned District Judge could not have proceeded to assess compensation towards diminished value of land, as same was already determined and paid in terms of order passed by Deputy Commissioner. 12. In fact, computation of compensation by Deputy Commissioner is by taking market value of land at Rs.2.3 Lakhs whereas, learned District Judge assessed compensation by taking its market value at Rs.2 Lakhs. It is also seen that while Deputy Commissioner ordered for consideration of 100% for diminution, learned District Judge has taken it at 30%. There being no dispute about extent of land utilized for corridor area and tower area, compensation determined by learned District Judge being much lesser than compensation determined by Deputy Commissioner and which was already paid by petitioners and received by respondent, there would be no scope for further enhancement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024 13. In view of above, impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 at Annexure-A would be unsustainable and stands quashed. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43