- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 14090 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI B E RANGAPPA REDDY, S/O ERAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O NAGAGONDANAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER [BY SRI SANTOSH N. HAGALAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), 400/220 KV LINE, WORKS SUB DIVISION KPTCL, 3RD COSS JCR CIRLCE, CHITRDURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENT [BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE (PH)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY LEARNED SPECIAL 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CIVIL MISC.502/2019 DATED 22.01.2021 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F TO WRIT PETITION BY Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 ALLOWING PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 16(3) INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885, IN ENTIRETY. THIS WRIT 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 judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Special II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.no.502/2019 as per Annexure-F, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Santosh N Hagalambi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Harish NR., advocate for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of 1 Acre 28 guntas in Sy.no.47/5 and 1 Acre 33 guntas of land in Sy.no.47/6 in Nagagondanahalli village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted, petitioner had improved said lands by investing effort and money, dug borewell and planted coconut, arecanut, tamarind, mango, sapota and neem trees etc. When same were about to yield fruits, respondents laid 400 KV High Tension power line from 765/400 Vasantha Narasapura, Tumakuru to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 Kelaginakanive village, Chitradurga, which passed over land bearing Sy.no.47/5. Notice was issued to petitioner, intending to lay power lines. Petitioner submitted his reply/objections. Despite same, respondents proceeded with installation. At time of installation, 40 arecanut trees, 45 coconut trees, 6 tamarind trees, 28 neem trees, 18 mango trees, 10 sweet lime trees and 30 sapota trees were cut but petitioner was paid inadequate compensation. It was submitted, petitioner had constructed fruit packing house and Vermicompost with water tank by spending more than Rs.5 Lakhs. Due to erection of HT wires, he was unable to use it. Therefore, he filed application before District Judge under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short). Same was registered as C.Misc.no.502/2019. 3. On entering appearance, respondents filed objections. Based on same, learned District judge framed following issues and recorded evidence. "(1) Whether petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the financial loss of damage cause to the above said trees, plants and crops in view of the installation of power line/tower? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 (2) If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation? (3) What order?" 4. Thereafter, petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. While respondents did not enter witness box but got marked memo of particulars as Exhibit R1 with consent. 5. On consideration, learned District Judge answered points no.1 and 2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing petition in part and holding petitioner entitled for compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- interest at 6% per annum. Dissatisfied with same, present writ petition was filed. 6. It was submitted, percentage of diminished value in case of dry land would be 30% and in case of garden land, it ought to be considered at 50%. 7. It was secondly contended that learned District Judge accepted value of trees as stated in Ex.R1 without any discussion or reasoning, instead of assessing value as per yield. It was submitted, petitioner had lost 10 sweet lime trees, 30 sapota trees, 6 tamarind and 18 mango, 40 arecanut, 45 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 coconut and 28 neem trees. It was submitted, there was no compensation awarded for 28 neem trees, while in respect of other trees as per Ex.R1, it was on lower side. 8. It was further submitted, petitioner had constructed shed for purpose of fruit packaging. Due to running of HT lines over same, he was unable to use it and sought compensation. Learned District Judge had not granted any compensation for same. On above grounds, sought for allowing writ petition. 9. On the other hand, Smt.S. Shubha, learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court in WA no.1375/2024 had held diminution of value of land due to drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines would have to be taken at 30%. Thus, assessment by learned District Judge would be justified on this count. 10. It was further submitted, insofar as market value, learned District Judge took note of fact that petitioner had grown various fruit bearing trees and considered petitioner's land as garden land and adopted value of garden land mentioned in Ex.P9-Sub Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV' for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 short) at Rs.3,50,000/- and awarded compensated for 45.47 guntas being area falling under corridor. Thus, there was no scope for enhancement. 11. It was however fairly submitted, though compensation was assessed and paid as per Ex.P3/Ex.R1, in respect of fruit bearing trees, same did not contemplate compensation in respect of neem trees. It was submitted, this Court in WP no.7513/2020 disposed of on 14.03.2023 had upheld award of compensation at Rs.3,500/- per neem tree, noting that it was based on yield method. Same could be adopted for present petition also. 12. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 13. From above, point that would arise for consideration is, "Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?" 14. Though learned counsel for petitioner submitted, diminished value of land has to be considered at 50% instead - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 of 30% on ground that land was garden land, it is seen that while assessing compensation, learned District Judge has considered nature of petitioner's land as garden land and adopted value mentioned thereof in SRGV at Ex.P9 at Rs.3,50,000/- for extent of 45.47 guntas. 15. Since Division Bench of this Court in WA no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025, has held diminution of value of land due to drawing of Overhead Transmission Line would be at 30%, modifying it from 50%, assessment of compensation by learned District Judge insofar as diminished value would be justified. 16. Insofar as value of fruit bearing trees, petitioner has sought to rely upon Record of Rights ('RoR'), Letter by KPTCL, Price list of trees issued by Horticulture Department, photographs and compact disk ('CD'), SRGV extract as Exhibits P1 to P9. It is seen that petitioner himself is relying upon Ex.P3 - valuation of trees by Horticulture Department. Comparison of value of trees mentioned therein with that of Ex.R1, would indicate that they are identical. Admittedly, said valuation was accepted and paid at time of laying transmission lines. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 However, valuation of neem trees was not done perhaps as it was not horticulture trees. But, Exhibits P3 and R1 do not include neem trees. 17. Perusal of deposition of petitioner as PW.1 would not indicate any specific evidence as would assist in assessment of compensation for neem trees. In absence of any specific material, reference could be made to assessment of value of neem trees in other cases. In WP no.7513/2020, disposed of on 14.03.2023, this Court upheld assessment of value of neem trees at Rs.3,500/- per tree based on yield certificate. Perusal of Ex.P2 would indicate that there were 2 neem trees and 28 neem saplings. During cross-examination of PW.1, only elicitation is that petitioner failed to produce certificate issued by Forest Department. During cross-examination, it is seen that there is no suggestion that 28 neem plants would not bear same value as trees. Therefore, it is found appropriate to treat all 30 neem trees equal in value. Thus, petitioner would be entitled for sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (30 neem trees x Rs.3,500/- per tree). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 18. Insofar as shed, admittedly, respondents have not demolished or caused any damage to shed. Petitioner would be able to use it as before. During cross-examination, it is elicited that shed has remained intact and respondents did not cause any damage. Therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for any compensation for same. 19. In view of above, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed in part; (ii) Judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Special II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.no.502/2019 at Annexure-F stands modified by holding that petitioner would be entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- towards neem trees, which shall also carry interest at 6% per annum from date of petition till deposit; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36587 WP No. 14090 of 2022 (iv) Respondents are directed to deposit same within 6 weeks from today; and (v) On deposit, same shall be released in favour of petitioner. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27