- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 22605 OF 2019 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: S R RANGASWAMY @ RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O GANJALAGUNTE VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TQ CHITRADURGA -577501 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, OFFCER OF KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, TUMKUR - 572 101. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, OFFCER OF KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, TUMKUR - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (PH)] THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND N PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO.247/2016. 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 ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment and award dated 16.12.2017 passed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.247/2016 as per Annexures-M and N, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was owner of 2 Acres of land in Sy.no.48/P5 and 1 Acre in Sy.no.48/P5P1 of Ganjalagunte village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga, over which respondents had drawn 220 KV High Tension Power Line with installation of one Tower. It was submitted at time of drawing lines, respondents had caused damage to standing crops and cut several fruit bearing trees and installation had also caused diminution of value of land. Though respondents had paid - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 Rs.2,61,361/-, same would not cover entire extent of damages sustained. Therefore, petitioner had filed petition under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (for short 'Act') before learned District Court. 3. On appearance, respondents opposed petition and filed objections. Learned District Judge framed points for consideration. In trial, petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked copies of Record of Rights ('RoRs') as Exs.P1 and P2; Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV') extract for year 2016-17 as Ex.P3; House list extract as Ex.P4; DCB register extract as Ex.P5; Requisition letter as Ex.P6 and Compensation bill as Ex.P7. Respondents did not lead oral evidence, but got marked copy of memo of particulars as Ex.R1 with consent. 4. On consideration, learned District Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative; point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing petition in part and holding petitioner entitled for compensation of Rs.22,000/- in addition to amount paid earlier. Not satisfied with same, petitioner was before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 5. It was firstly submitted that as per SRGV, value of lands growing coconut trees was Rs.2,75,000/- per acre during year 2016-17. But, learned District Judge considered value of petitioner's land at Rs.72,000/-, which was erroneous. It was submitted as per order of Deputy Commissioner which was accepted by respondents that value of each coconut tree cut was assessed at Rs.16,314/-. It was submitted as per Annexure-E - Compensation Assessment Bill prepared by respondents there were 43 coconut trees aged 6 years in petitioner's land that were cut. However, compensation was paid at Rs.900/- per plant, which was grossly inadequate. 6. It was submitted while in Annexure-K, compensation determined per mango tree by Deputy Commissioner was Rs.27,862/-, amount assessed herein was at Rs.21,432/- which was inadequate. It was further submitted that there was farmhouse put up by petitioner in land. No compensation was granted for said house. On said grounds sought for enhancement. 7. On other hand, Smt.Shubha S., learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition. It was submitted as per - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 RoRs at Annexures-C and D, petitioner's land was shown as dry land. Therefore, assessment of compensation by treating it as such was justified. It was further submitted basis for seeking enhancement insofar as coconut and mango trees was order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, which was in respect of different transmission lines laid during some other period and was not similar to one in consideration. Therefore, same would not be applicable. It was further submitted that during cross-examination, PW.1 had clearly admitted that he had failed to produce documents to substantiate construction of farmhouse. On said ground, sought dismissal of writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record. 9. From above, point that would arise for consideration is: "Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?" 10. As noted above, petitioner's grievance against impugned order passed by learned District Judge is firstly on ground that Ex.R3 showed there were 43 coconut trees in petitioner's land. Such being case, valuation of land ought to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 have been taken as per Ex.P3 at Rs.2,75,000/- per Acre. Insofar as value of coconut and mango trees, it is seen claim is based on order of Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur at Annexure- K. Perusal of said order would reveals that it was not in respect of instant transmission lines. Moreover, said order was not produced and marked as evidence. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek to rely on same. Moreover that order was not even for same year as in present case. Therefore claim for enhancement based on Annexure-K would not be justified. Even insofar as farmhouse, it is seen that learned District Judge has referred to admission by petitioner about failure to produce any documents about construction of farmhouse. Therefore, petitioner's claim for compensation on said count would require to be rejected. 11. In view of conclusion arrived at above, market value of land has to be considered at Rs.2,75,000/- per Acre. There is no dispute about extent of land utilized for drawing of transmission lines i.e. 20.7561 guntas. Thus, compensation payable to petitioner would be Rs.2,75,000/- divided by 40 = Rs.6,875/- per gunta. Division Bench of this Court in W.A.no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025 has held diminution of value of land has to be calculated at 30% of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36585 WP No. 22605 of 2019 market value. Thus, 30% X Rs.6,875/- would be Rs.2,062.50/-. Same multiplied by 20.7561 would be Rs.42,809/-. Thus, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Petitioner is held entitled for compensation of Rs.42,809/- instead of Rs.22,000/- assessed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.247/2016. iii. Said amount shall carry interest at rate of 8% per annum from date of petition till payment. iv. Respondents are directed to deposit said amount by deducting earlier deposited within a period of six weeks from today. v. On deposit, same shall be released in favour of petitioner. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25