- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 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. 6161 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: N.T. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O LATE SANNA THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O N R KONDAPURA VILLAGE OBALAPURA, MOLAKALMURU TLAUK 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 CAUVERYBAVANA, BANGALORE 01. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIVSIION 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. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (PH)] THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CIVIL MISC NO.401/2018DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNX-D AND E PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO.401/2018. Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 of 2022 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 1 Acre 26 guntas, in Sy.no.14/3 of Obalapura 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 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 of 2022 compensation for same, claiming that value of petitioner's land was Rs.10 lakhs per acre and seeking for award of Rs.12 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.401/2018 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/tower? ii) If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? iii) What order? 6. Thereafter, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P.1 and P.2. On behalf of respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 of 2022 7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by determining Rs.30,381/- rounded off to Rs.31,000/- as 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 of 2022 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. On above grounds, impugned award called for interference. 13. Sri H.V.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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 of 2022 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 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29853 WP No. 6161 of 2022 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. 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. 22. 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.: 41