- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29860 WP No. 16503 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. 16503 OF 2022 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: DEVISHETTY THIPPAMMA, W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/ O DADAGURU VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, 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 ANIRUDH A KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 (PH)] Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29860 WP No. 16503 of 2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD VIDE ANNEXURES-G AND H PASSED BY 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MISC.NO.313/2020 DATED 04.08.2021 AND ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT. 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 01 Acres 13 guntas, in Sy.no.31/6 of Dadaguru village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2019, 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:29860 WP No. 16503 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 at 5 lakhs per acre and seeking for award of Rs.7 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum. 3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.No.313/2020 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 to P.3. Respondents got marked one document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29860 WP No. 16503 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.16,938/- 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. 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:29860 WP No. 16503 of 2022 11. It was thirdly submitted, fact that restriction of user was perennial was also not considered. 12. It was lastly submitted, Exs.P1 and 2 - Record of Rights produced along with Borewell Certificate would establish that petitioner's land was irrigated land. As per Ex.P.3 value of irrigated lands was Rs.67,000/-. But, learned District Judge considered Rs.55,000/- as market value, which was for dry lands. Hence order was erroneous, calling for interference. 13. On other hand, Sri Anirudh A Kulkarni, 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:29860 WP No. 16503 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. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 18. In view of above, question that arises for consideration is: "Whether determination of compensation towards diminished value of land by District Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for interference?" 19. At outset, it has to be noted that all other grounds urged herein except insofar as nature of petitioner's land, stand - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29860 WP No. 16503 of 2022 covered by decision of this Court in W.P.no.5894/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025, and would be liable for rejection. 20. Insofar as claim of petitioner about her land being irrigated, petitioner relied on borewell certificate marked as Ex.P.2, and produced herein as Annexure-D. Ex.P3 is extract of SRGV for year 2017-18. Petitioner's land does not fall within lands abutting to village or village road. Therefore, guidance value at Sl.no.178 of Ex.P.3 would apply. While it is Rs.55,000/- for dry land, it is Rs.67,000/- for irrigated land. Ex.R1 would indicate total extent of area suffering restricted user was 16.82 guntas and extent of diminution of value would be at 30%. 21. While calculating compensation, learned District Judge adopted value of Dry land at Rs.55,000/- and arrived at amount of Rs.6,938/-. In view of indisputable material in Ex.P.2 - borewell certificate establishing petitioner's land as irrigated, SRGV for irrigated land at Rs.67,000/- has to be considered. 30% diminished value would be Rs.20,100/- per acre, which will be Rs.502.5 per gunta. And for 16.82 guntas, it would be Rs.8,452/-, i.e. Rs.1,514/- more than Rs.6,938/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29860 WP No. 16503 of 2022 determined by learned District Judge. Since, he has awarded Rs.10,000/- over and above amount (as area falling under Tower) without basis, same would off-set scope for interference. Point for consideration is answered in negative. 22. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29860 WP No. 16503 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [DEVISHETTY THIPPAMMA VS. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS] 06.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER 'ON BEING SPOKEN TO' Above matter was disposed of on 01.08.2025 along with bunch of similar matters from same counsel. While other matters were dismissed, this case was disposed of finding scope for enhancement of compensation by Rs.5,840/-. However, it was later noticed that there was error in calculation and even if petitioner were to succeed, enhancement would be by Rs.1,514/-, which would pale into insignificance as separate amount of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid for area falling under tower, over and above compensation for entire area falling under Transmission Lines/Tower. Learned counsel for petitioner as well as counsel for respondents were apprised of said error. In view of above, final result in writ petition is modified from 'disposed of' to 'dismissed'. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1