- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2023 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: MARAPPA, S/O DASANNA @ DASAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUNIKERE VILLAGE, BEERENAHALLY POST, HIRIYUR TALUK 572 143, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAMAGARI DIVISION, KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD OLD ZP OFFICE, TUMKURU - 572 101. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRUHAT KAMAGARI DIVISION, KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD, OLD ZP OFFICE, TUMKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE ) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC.NO.77/2015 DATED 01.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS 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 01.04.2022 passed by Special 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chithradurga, in Civil Misc.no.77/2015, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is owner of 6 Acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.no.169/1 of Kunikere village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga, utilized by respondents in year 2014 for drawing 220 KV High Tension Electricity Transmission Line with installation of one Tower. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 3. It was submitted, petitioner had grown arecanut and coconut apart from onion in lands which sustained damages. It was submitted, on 24.01.2015, petitioner was paid Rs.50,000/- towards damage to onion crop; each arecanut tree aged 6 years was valued at Rs.3,726.17/- and Rs.21,05,286/- paid for 565 trees; each arecanut aged 4 years valued at Rs.421.36/- and Rs.14,747/- paid for 35 trees; each coconut tree aged 8 years valued at Rs.16,654.33/- and Rs.1,49,889/- paid for 9 trees i.e., total of Rs.23,19,925/-. It was submitted, respondents had not considered duration for which trees would have yielded income nor considered nature of land as garden land. Fact that land suffered diminution of value was also lost sight of. Therefore, petitioner filed application under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short), for assessment of damages. 4. On appearance, respondents opposed application. Thereafter, learned District Judge framed issues and petitioner led evidence examining herself as PW.1 and marking copy of Record of Rights of land as Ex.P1, Borewell certificate as Ex.P2, Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV' for short) Extract for year 2014-2015 as Ex.P3, Crop yield certificate as Ex.P.4 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 Price list of coconut as Ex.P5. Respondents did not lead evidence, but got marked copy of order passed by Deputy Commissioner and memo of particulars as Exhibits R1 and R2 with consent. 5. On consideration, impugned order was passed. It was firstly submitted, value of arecanut considered by learned District Judge at Rs.150/- per kg was on lower side. Likewise, value paid for 35 arecanut trees aged 4 years, at Rs.421.36/- each was grossly on lower side. It was further submitted, no compensation was awarded for area falling under tower which had occupied an extent of 10 X 10 metres. On said grounds, sought for allowing writ petition and determining just damages. 6. On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted while passing impugned order, learned District Judge had taken note of each of factors and determined just compensation. It was pointed out, even if there were any scope for enhancement, fact that cultivation cost was not deducted would clearly offset same and therefore, sought dismissal of petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 7. Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition and material on record. 8. From above, point that would arise for consideration is: "Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, as sought for?" 9. At outset, utilization of petitioner's land for drawing of overhead transmission line by respondents, petitioner sustaining damages and being entitled for compensation for felling of 565 arecanut trees more than 6 years of age, 35 arecanut trees about 4 years of age; 9 coconut trees about 8 years of age, are not in dispute. Main ground for seeking enhancement is value of arecanut considered by learned District Judge is on lower side and no compensation assessed for area falling under tower. 10. Careful perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 by respondents would reveal that respondents themselves suggested that value of 1 Quintal of arecanut was Rs.20,000/-. Same would be Rs.200/- per kg. Respondents have also suggested that each arecanut tree would yield 1-2 kgs of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 arecanut per year. While assessing compensation, learned District Judge has rightly taken higher yield for consideration, but erred in taking value of arecanut per kg at Rs.150/- instead of Rs.200/-. At same time, he erred in not deducting any cultivation cost. Same has to be taken notionally at 30%. 11. Re-computation of compensation would be as follows: 565 trees X 2 kgs X Rs.200/- per kg, capitalized for 10 years = Rs.22,60,000/-. 12. On deduction of 30% towards cultivation cost, amount would be Rs.15,82,000/-. Same would be less than amount awarded by learned District Judge. Even, in case of coconut trees also, there is no deduction of cultivation cost. Therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for enhancement of compensation, insofar as loss due to felling of fruit bearing trees. 13. Apart from above, learned District Judge has also awarded compensation towards diminution of value of land at 30% of SRGV. Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.no.1375/2025 disposed of on 21.07.2025, has held that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34898 WP No. 352 of 2023 diminution of value due to drawing of overhead transmission line has to be calculated at 30%. Even contention that no compensation is awarded for area under Tower would be unsustainable as entire area falling under transmission lines as well as Tower as mentioned in Ex.R2 is taken for assessment of damages. Thus, compensation awarded by learned District Judge would not call for enhancement as it is not lower than amount for which petitioner would be entitled. Point for consideration is answered in negative. In view of above, writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD/AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30