- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 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. 5894 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: RUDRAMMA, W/O NAGAREDDY M., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DADAGURU VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., BENGALURU REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERY BAVANA, BANGALORE 01. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB-DIVISION-1, KPTCL OFFICE, KPTCL, 3RD CROSS (EAST) JCR CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 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 CIVIL MISC.316/2018 ANNEXURES-E AND F DATED 27.5.2019 AND 6.6.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO.316/2018. 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 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 2 Acres 9 guntas, in Sy.no.47/1P2 of Dadaguru village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2017, respondents installed 400 KV power line/tower over petitioner's land. It was submitted, same not only cause damage/destruction of crops grown on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 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 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.10 lakhs per acre and seeking for award of Rs.32 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.No.316/2018 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: i) Whether petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the head decrease of value of land in view of installation of power line? ii) If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? iii) What order? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 6. Thereafter, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.3. Respondent no.3 got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by determining Rs.32,898/- 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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 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 Borewell Certificate would establish that petitioner's land was bagayat land and therefore, assessment by taking SRGV for dry land was erroneous. On above grounds, impugned award called for interference. 13. 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. 14. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 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, in case of lands abutting Highways, Division Bench of this Court had upheld determination of diminished value of land at 50% of SRGV and 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 and therefore, difference in total compensation would be negligible. 18. Under above circumstances, there was no scope for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought dismissal of writ petition. 19. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 20. 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?" 21. Same is answered in negative for following reasons. 22. Insofar as petitioner's claim for considering market value of lands as determined under provisions of land acquisition enactments for determination of compensation towards diminished value of lands under provisions of Act, it is firstly to be noted that there is fundamental difference in purpose. 23. While in case of laying of Power Transmission Lines, deprivation of right would in most cases be only of right over - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 said land and owner of land would be entitled to use land for any purpose as intended subject to certain restrictions in area falling under installations and abutting area, such as prohibition against putting up construction beyond certain height and against growing plants/trees beyond certain height etc. 24. Whereas, in case of acquisition under Land Acquisition Enactments, very purpose and intention is to divest title and possession over land under acquisition and to commit it for different user. In view of said differences, there would be no need to acquire land compulsorily. 25. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala SEB v. Livisha, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 792, held : "2. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. What would be the amount of compensation for the trees cut and removed by the Kerala State Electricity Board, a body corporate, constituted and incorporated under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is the question involved in these appeals. Indisputably, amount of compensation for the said purpose is determined in terms of the provisions of Section 10, Part III of the Telegraph Act, 1885. … … … … … … 9. Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefor. Section 10 of the Act empowers the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, or posts in or upon any immovable property. Section 11 empowers the officers to enter on property in order to repair or remove telegraph lines or posts. Section 12 empowers the authority to grant permission for laying down such lines to a local authority in terms of Clauses (c) and (d) of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act subject to reasonable conditions as it may think fit. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under: “16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.—(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. (2) If, after the making of an order under sub- section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 188 of the Penal Code, 1860. (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. (4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.” 10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used. 11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit- bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526 : 2007 AIR SCW 1145] wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri v. Financial Commr. & Revenue Secy. to Govt. of Punjab [1995 Supp (2) SCC 635] , State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637] , para 4 and Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527] . In Airports Authority [(2002) 3 SCC 527] it was held : (SCC p. 533, para 14) “14. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case [1995 Supp (2) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 SCC 637] and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the matter, in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18.” (emphasis supplied) 26. Thus, it is clear that principles or method of evaluation of compensation contemplated under Land Acquisition Enactments, would not be applicable as it is, while determining compensation towards diminution of value of land, especially insofar as addition of solatium etc. 27. Specific grievance espoused by petitioner herein is against consideration of SRGV as market value while computing compensation towards diminution of value of land. 28. Admittedly, Division Bench of this Court has upheld assessment of diminution of value at 50% in cases of lands having NA potential namely abutting Highways, villages/urban areas etc., and in other cases at 30%, manner of determination of market value has not been mandated to be SRGV. 29. Normally, in a petition for determination of monetary compensation/damages, burden would be on petitioner to establish extent of loss suffered by leading cogent - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 evidence. It is equally wont on part of Courts to resort to SRGV as next best material. Perusal of impugned award would indicate, only material sought to be relied upon for determination are self serving statement of petitioner based on Record of Right of land in question (Ex.P1), Valuation Certificate i.e. extract of SRGV (Ex.P2) and Borewell Certificate (Ex.P3), while respondents relied on Field Report (Ex.R1) which contains particulars of land falling under Lines/Towers and Restricted Area abutting it. 30. It is noted that while assessing compensation, learned District Judge has taken note of exact area falling under Tower and under Transmission Lines, adopted SRGV applicable to type of land (i.e. Dry, wet or Garden). 31. Lastly, even claim for enhancement on ground that land was bagayat land, would require to be rejected as difference would be negligible. 32. In view of above, none of petitioner's contention namely, restriction on user being permanent, failure to consider restricted area for compensation or failure to determine market value as per principles provided under Land Acquisition - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29886 WP No. 5894 of 2022 Enactments are substantiated. Impugned award is not shown to suffer from any irregularity or illegality as would entail exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Hence, no scope for interference, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG/AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39