- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24426 OF 2019 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SEENAPPA @ SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O RANJALAGUNTE VILLAGE HIRIYUR TQ, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGADE NAGARAJA, ADV.) AND: 1. KPTCL, BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION. BOTH ARE OFFICERS OF KPTCL NO.3, KOTHITHOPU ROAD OLD ZILLA PANCHYATH OFFICE TUMKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PADMA S UTTUR, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MIS NO.248/2016.MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNX-G AND H PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 1st ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA ON 2nd FEBRUARY 2018 IN MIS NO.248/2016. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 02.02.2018 passed by Special I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc. No.248/2016 at Annexures-G and H, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is owner of 3 Acres of land in Sy.no.48/P5 of Ganjalagunte Village, Hiriyur Taluq, Chitradurga District, over which respondents had drawn 220 KV High Tension Power Line. It was submitted that at time of drawing of line, damage was caused to standing crops and trees and installation lead to diminution of value of land. It was submitted though respondents had granted compensation of Rs.42,432/- same was not adequate. Therefore, petitioner had filed application under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) before learned District Judge. On appearance, respondents contested same. After trial, learned District Judge assessed compensation and passed order and award as per Annexures G and H. Dissatisfied with same, present petition was filed. It was submitted, only - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019 ground urged in this writ petition was at time of assessment of compensation, learned District Judge had not taken actual market value as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and instead assessed compensation by referring to Sub-Registrar Guidelines Value (hereinafter referred to as 'SRGV' for short), which had constrained petitioner to approach this Court. 3. On other hand, Smt.Padma S. Uttur, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted contention that for assessment of compensation as per provisions of land Acquisition Enactments was considered and rejected by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025 and submits that same would hold good for this petition also. 4. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused writ petition. 5. Since only ground urged in this petition is that learned District Judge had assessed compensation based on SRGV instead of Market Value while computing diminution value of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019 land and said contention has been considered and rejected by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025, present petition would not merit consideration. Besides, it is seen that petitioner had himself sought to rely on SRGV and except said material, there was no other evidence to substantiate actual Market Value would also lead to conclusion that, no exception to orders at Annexures G and H can be taken. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE DN