- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 16532 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: D. B. GAVISIDDAPPA, S/O. HOTTEBASANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HOSADADAGURU, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., BENGALURU, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERY BAVANA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT) MAJOR WORKS, SUB-DIVISION-1, KPTCL OFFICE, KPTCL, 3RD CROSS (EAST), JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURES-G AND H PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MISC.NO.838/2019 DATED 18.3.2021 AND ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AND ETC., 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Challenging order passed by District Judge determining compensation under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short) payable for damages sustained by land- owner/petitioner due to installation of 400 KV Power Line/Towers over petitioner's land, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of land measuring 4 Acres 11 guntas, in Re.Sy.no.31/1 of Dadaguru village, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2017, respondents installed 400 KV Power Line/Tower over petitioners' land causing damage/destruction of crops but also acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at time of installation, respondents/authorities paid compensation only towards damage to crops etc. Therefore, they filed petition for determination of compensation of Rs.21 Lakhs with interest. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.838/2019 and notices were issued. 4. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 5. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: i) Whether petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the head of decrease of value of the land in view of installation of power line? ii) If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? iii) What order? 6. In trial, petitioner deposed himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P4. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.13,520/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 6% per annum. 8. Aggrieved by said determination as being inadequate, petitioner is before this Court. 9. It was firstly submitted, due to installation, petitioner was permanently prevented from cultivating land - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 utilized for installation, which was akin to acquisition of land under provisions of The Right for Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, ('RFCTLARR Act', for short). Therefore, learned District Judge erred in taking Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV', for short) instead of market value of land while determining diminished value of land. 10. It was secondly submitted, fact that not only land directly falling under Towers and Lines, but also surrounding area suffered from restricted user and therefore required to be considered while determining compensation. 11. It was thirdly submitted, fact that restriction of user was perennial was also not considered. 12. It was lastly submitted, Record of Rights produced along with valuation certificate would establish that petitioner's land was bagayat land and therefore, assessment by taking SRGV for dry land was erroneous. It was further submitted, Petitioner's land was abutting National Highway and compensation was determined without noting NA potentiality. On above grounds, impugned award called for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 13. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 opposed petition. It was submitted, installation of Towers/Line by respondent authorities was in accordance with law after payment of damages to crops/trees/constructions as applicable, which was admitted. 14. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. 15. It was submitted, acquisition of land under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and under RFCTLARR Act, differed from utilization of land for installation under provisions of Act. It was submitted, there was no deprivation of title or possession. Even after installation, owners could cultivate lands. Restriction of user was partial. Therefore, provisions for assessment of compensation under Land Acquisition enactments would not apply. 16. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court had held diminished value of land would be at 30% of SRGV. And as determination of compensation was not only taking area - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 directly coming under installations, but also area under restricted user, there was no scope for interference. 17. Insofar as claim of petitioner about land being bagayat land, it was submitted while calculating compensation, learned District Judge had adopted value of Tari or Wet land, which was only Rs.1,000/- lower than SRGV for bagayat land and therefore, difference in total compensation would be negligible. Under above circumstances, there was no scope for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought dismissal of writ petition. 18. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 19. In view of above, only point that would arise for consideration is: "Whether determination of compensation towards diminished value of land by District Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for interference?" 20. Facts and circumstances of present case as well as contentions urged by respective learned counsel have received consideration while dismissing W.P.no.5894/2022. Said findings would squarely apply to present case also. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33881 WP No. 16532 of 2022 21. Insofar as land abutting National Highway, it is seen, no material was produced to establish that petitioner's land abutting National Highway. Hence, for above reasons, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18