Karnataka High Court
K Siddesh @ Siddesha vs Executive Engineer on 14 August, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31571
WP No. 24020 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 24020 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
K.SIDDESH @ SIDDESHA,
S/O EMME KENCHAPPA,
ALIAS KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O MADAKARIPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DIST 577501
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS SECTION, KPTCL,
R.HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING,
Digitally signed by P B ROAD,
GEETHAKUMARI DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION 1,
KSRTC DEPOT ROAD,
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
(ELECTRICAL) T L M.,
SUB DIVISON, KPTCL,
VIDHYA NAGARA,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31571
WP No. 24020 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC.NO.226/2011 DATED
13.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash order dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure-G) passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.No.226/2011.
2. Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel submitted that petitioner is owner of 1 Acre 12 guntas and 12 guntas of land in Sy.nos.114/2A and 114/2A of Madakaripura village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and was cultivating same for growing flowers, fruits as well as agricultural crops etc. It was submitted, said fertile and irrigated lands was worth more than Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. When during year 2009, respondents installed 66 KV power line over 30 guntas of land and tower over 20 X 20 ft. destroying crops and coconuts trees etc. and paying paltry amount of Rs.4,941/- on 15.09.2009. Dissatisfied -3- NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR with same, he filed Civil Misc.Petn. no.226/2011 under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1886 ('Act' for short) claiming for award of Rs.17,62,000/- with current and future interest at 24% per acre as damages.
3. On appearance, respondents filed objections opposing claim for enhancement, but admitted installation of power line and payment of Rs.4,941/- on 15.09.2009 towards full and final settlement to petitioner.
4. 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?
5. To prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P13. On behalf of respondents, Assistant Engineer was examined as RW-1 and got marked Exhibits R1 and R2.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR
6. On consideration, learned District Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing petition in part directing respondents to pay compensation of Rs.44,500/- with interest at rate of 6% per annum from date of petition till realization.
7. Dissatisfied with meager compensation, this petition is filed by owner.
8. It was firstly submitted, petitioner's land was within planning area of Chitradurga Urban Development Authority as indicated in Ex.P5 - endorsement. Consequently, market value of Rs.10,00,000/- per acre as per Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV', for short) ought to have been considered and diminution rate @ 50% ought to have been considered. Instead order was passed taking market value at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre without justification.
9. It was secondly submitted, though more than 30 guntas of petitioner's land fell under transmission lines/tower, compensation was determined for only 15.12 guntas. It was submitted, diminution of value of land falling under tower was required to be considered at 85% of market value. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. On other hand, Sri Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted, Ex.P1 - RoR did not mention any source of irrigation or about trees grown on land. It was submitted, Ex.P3 - SRGV extract would indicate value of land falling within planning area of Local Planning Authority for year 2007-08 was Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,15,000/-. But for year 2009-10, they were shown to be Rs.10,00,000/-, nearly five fold increase in one year. It was submitted while passing impugned order, learned District Judge had taken note of above facts and circumstances and awarded compensation by considering market value at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre.
11. It was submitted, at time of installation, sum of Rs.4,941/- was paid as damages to crop/trees, while under impugned order separate amount of Rs.34,020/- was determined/paid in respect of land falling in corridor area, leaving no scope for interference.
12. While passing impugned order, learned District Judge had taken note of particulars mentioned in Exs.R1 and R2, arrived at conclusion that total corridor area was 15.12 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR guntas and computed compensation accordingly. There was no material placed on record about any extent of area being left out from corridor area while awarding compensation.
13. And insofar as compensation towards loss of income due to cutting of trees, it was submitted, learned District Judge had adopted methodology for determination of compensation as done in W.P.no.39979/2013 (Executive Engineer, KPTCL and Anr. v. Doddakka disposed of on 06.08.2014) and determined value of each tree at Rs.10,300/-. Thus, there was no scope for enhancement. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of petition.
14. Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition and record.
15. In view of above, question that arises for consideration is:
"Whether determination of damages by District Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act in favour of petitioner, calls for enhancement and if so by what amount?"
16. From above, drawing up of overhead transmission line over petitioner's land, petitioner sustaining damages on that count and respondents being liable to pay compensation -7- NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR are not in dispute. Enhancement is sought on specific grounds. Firstly, on ground that petitioner's land fell within planning area of Local planning authority and therefore, diminution to be considered at 50% of market value. To substantiate said claim, petitioner relied upon endorsement dated 25.04.2007 issued by Chitradurga Urban Development Authority produced as Ex.P5. Petitioner also relied upon SRGV extract as per Ex.P13. Perusal of Ex.P13 indicates value of dry land falling within local planning area for year 2009-10 was Rs.10,00,000/-. But learned District Judge considered market value at Rs.3,00,000/- while computing compensation. Same would be apparently contrary to material on record.
17. Division Bench of this Court in WA no.100366/2022 and connected matters (The Chief Engineer, Electricity Transmission Zone, KPTCL, Ballari v. Gangappa decided on 20.06.2023) has held as follows:
"10. There is no dispute with regard to utilization of the respondents' lands in all the writ appeals for erection of 400 KV high tension transmission line and for erection of electrical towers. The trial Court while awarding the enhanced compensation has taken diminutive value of the lands utilized at 50%. It cannot be disputed that erection of high voltage electrical line through/over any agricultural land by the appellants/KPTCL in exercise -8- NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR of powers conferred on them under Section 10 of the Act, 1885 would result definitely in reduction of value of the property. It is to be noted that diminutive value is to be assessed taking note of potentiality of the lands, its utilization, fertility of the land and commercial value of the land etc. What is the percentage of diminutive value is to be determined by the Courts. While determining the diminutive value, the Court shall take note of the crops grown in the land, whether it is commercial or agricultural. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor for determining diminutive value. The amount of compensation is required to be determined keeping in view the purpose and object of the statute. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in this behalf. Undisputedly, the claimants/respondents would not be in a position to utilize the land as they were utilizing the lands earlier, because of erection of electric transmission line. No doubt the claimants/respondents would not be in a position to grow trees underneath the high tension transmission line, but they are not deprived of the lands from utilizing for any other agricultural activity. Admittedly, possession of the lands are not taken by the appellants and title remains with the respondents/land owners. Respondents/land owners are not prohibited from utilizing the lands for any other purpose beneath the electric transmission line. It is the case of the respondents that they were growing chilly, groundnut and other commercial crops. Erection of electric line would not come in the way of growing chilly, groundnut and other crops beneath the electric lines. But there may be little reduction in yield. To compensate such reduction in yield and also land value, diminutive value is to be assessed."
18. Considering same and taking note of specific material indicating NA potentiality of land in view of Ex.P5, diminution of value has to be considered at 50% instead of 30% as assessed by learned District Judge. Likewise, insofar as land falling under Tower, where restriction of user if greater -9- NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR than under transmission lines, diminution of value of area falling under tower has to be at 85%.
19. Ex.R1 - calculation memo produced by respondents would indicate out of total extent of 15.20 guntas falling under corridor area including tower, extent of 4.03 guntas fell under tower. Thus, compensation would be as follows:
Rs.10,00,000/- per Acre would be Rs.25,000/- per gunta.
A] In respect of area falling under Tower i.e. 4.03 Guntas:
Rs.25,000/- X 85% x 4.03 = Rs.85,637.5/-
B] In respect of Corridor Area i.e. 11.17 guntas:
Rs.25,000/- X 50% X 11.17 = Rs.1,39,625/-. Total of A & B would be Rs.2,25,262.5/-, which would be compensation instead of Rs.34,020/- determined by learned District Judge and would be in addition to Rs.10,300/- determined as compensation towards loss of income from two Coconut Trees and Rs.4,941/- paid by respondents on 15.09.2009 towards damages to crops/trees.
20. Thus, answering question arising for consideration accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31571 WP No. 24020 of 2022 HC-KAR 13.07.2022 (Annexure-G) passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.No.226/2011 is modified; and petitioner is held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,25,262.5/- instead of Rs.34,020/- with interest at 8% from date of petition till its realization.
Sd/-
(RAVI V. HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg/AV/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63