- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 6365 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: BOMMAKKA, W/O BHARAMANNA, AGED 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KONAPURA MURADI VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED., BENGALURU, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, R.HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECL) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION-1, KPTCL OFFICE, KPTCL, 3RD CROSS, (EAST) JCR CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA - 577 001. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SANGANAKALLU ROAD, BELLARY - 583 103. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R 1 TO R4 (PH)] Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND E PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO. 519/2018. 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 order passed by District Judge determining compensation under Section 16 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 lands, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of land measuring 3 Acres 36 guntas, in Sy.no.70 of Muradi village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2019, respondents installed 400KV power line/tower over petitioner's land. It was submitted, same not only cause damage/destruction of crops grown on petitioner's land but also led to acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at time of installation, respondents/authorities paid compensation only towards damage to crops etc. But not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 towards diminution of value of land. Therefore, petitioner filed petition for determination of compensation for same, claiming that value of petitioner's land was Rs.5 Lakhs per acre and seeking for award of Rs.10.5 Lakhs with interest at 12% per annum. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.No.519/2018 and notices were issued. 4. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim. 5. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration: 1. Whether the petitioner has made out valid grounds for grant of compensation, as prayed for in the petition? 2. What order? 6. Thereafter, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.4. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit R.1. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative and point no.2 by determining Rs.39,200/- as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 8% 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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 12. Sri Shirish Krishna, 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. 13. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. 14. 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. 15. It was submitted, in case of lands abutting Highways, Division Bench of this Court had upheld determination of diminished value of land at 50% of SRGV and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 in case of others at 30% of SRGV. And as determination of compensation was not only taking area directly coming under installations, but also area under restricted user, there was no scope for interference. 16. It was contended in Ex.P.1, crop shown is cotton without irrigation source. However considering Ex.P.3 - Borewell certificate, nature of land was taken as irrigated and value adopted accordingly. 17. Therefore, compensation awarded is just and proper and 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?" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29854 WP No. 6365 of 2022 20. Though as per Ex.P.2 - SRGV value of irrigated and of Murudi village is mentioned as Rs.73,000/- per acre, while assessing compensation, learned District Judge considered market value at Rs.82,000/- which corresponds to irrigated lands abutting village. This would indicate that proper value was considered while computing compensation. 21. Insofar as other grounds urged herein, they have received consideration by this Court while dismissing W.P.no.5894/2022. Said findings would squarely apply to present case also. Hence, for reasons stated in order passed by this Court in WP no.5894/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025, point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently, this petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42