Karnataka High Court
Herald Felix Monteiro vs District Magistrate on 28 January, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5390
WP No. 23632 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 23632 OF 2018 (GM-TEL)
BETWEEN:
HERALD FELIX MONTEIRO
S/O JOKIM MONTIERO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
6D, DELTA COURT
S.L.MATHAIS ROAD
FALNIR, MANGALORE-575 001
DISTRICT D.K
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DAKSHINA KANNADA
Digitally DC COMPOUND
signed by MANGALURU, D.K.
SUMA B N
Location:
HIGH 2. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
COURT OF REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA (ELECTRICAL)
HEAVY WORKS DIVISION
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.
KAVOORU, MANGALURU
D.K-575015.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5390
WP No. 23632 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD 07.09.2017 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, D.K. MANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
This petition is by owner of the land bearing Sy.No.55/2 and 55/3 situated in Kudupu Village (Shakthinagar), Mangalore Taluk, D.K being aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner. In terms of which, the respondent No.2 has been permitted to draw High Tension Electrical line over the aforesaid lands of the petitioner and also for the purpose of putting up Tower Nos.23 to 25 thereon.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the record submits that the very order passed by the respondent No.1 permitting erection of towers over the lands of the petitioner which eventually consumes an area of not less than 4,000 square feet, is contrary to the -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR provisions of Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for brevity 'Act'). In terms of which there is no provision for erection of tower and that Section 3(5) of the Act only speaks about erection of pole which would not consume the area as it would, if a tower is erected.
3. He submits that considerable portion of land in Sy.No.55/2 of the petitioner has already been utilized for the purpose of providing access to Ashraya houses. Further, deprivation of property by the respondent/authority, that too, without adequate payment of compensation would result in complete deprivation of the utilised property by the petitioner. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that total number of towers proposed are 50 of which 38 towers have already been completed. That the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.55/2 falls in the surveyed area identified and determined for the purpose of erection of Tower No.23. But for the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent/authority would have completed the project by now. On the contention of payment of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR adequate compensation, he files a memo dated 28.01.2026 furnishing the Judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and the Guidelines issued by the Central Government, which are as under;
1. 2007(6) SCC 792- Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Livisha and others;
2. ILR 2015 KAR 677, The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and Another vs. Doddakka;
3. Guidelines for Compensation towards damages dated 15.10.2015;
4. 2017(5) SCC 143- Power Grid Corporation of India vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others;
5. W.P.No.113268/2019 along with connected Writ Petitions decided on 11.04.2022- The Chief Engineer, KPTCL and others vs. Gangappa;
6. W.A.No.100366/2022 along with connected Writ Appeals decided on 20.06.2023- The Chief Engineer, KPTCL and others vs. Gangappa;
7. W.A.No.1375/2024 decided on 21.07.2025 -
Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), KPTCL vs. Sri. Doddathimmappa and others;
8. Civil Appeal Nos.10882-10888/2025, Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., vs. Vinod and Others;
9. Law Commissioner Report;
5. Referring to paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (supra), wherein the Apex Court at paragraph number 10 has held as under;
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR "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."
6. He also refers to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and Another (referred to supra) wherein at paragraphs 24 and 25 this Court has held as under;
"24. As regards the diminution value of the land falling within the corridor, the learned District Judge having determined the market value of the land has awarded 50% of the same as diminution value. It cannot be disputed that though the farmer is not capable of growing trees underneath the corridor, he is not totally deprived of utilizing land for carrying out other agricultural operations. He is entitled to grow other crops, which may not affect the high voltage transmission line. Though the farmer is deprived of the opportunity to utilize the land to its full potential and grow horticulture crops, particularly consisting of trees and other luxurious shrubs, he is capable of utilizing the land. The title of the land continues to vest in him. It is, no doubt, true that his access to the land and use of the same by erecting any pole, shed or any other installation will be restricted. In a case like this where high voltage transmission line is drawn across the land, utilization of the other portion of the land is also affected. Therefore, all these factors have to be taken into consideration before determining the diminution in the land value on account of drawing of high voltage electrical line. If these relevant factors are borne in mind, particularly having regard to the photographs produced and the evidence adduced by the claimant - land owner, I find that 30% of the market value of the area affected shall have to be paid as diminution value of the land to the farmer.-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR
25. The market value of the land has been determined at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre based on the evidence on record, particularly the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar. There is no scope to interfere with the valuation of the market value made by the Learned District Judge. Therefore, the only modification that can be made in awarding the diminution value is that instead of 50% of the market value awarded by the Learned District Judge, it has to be calculated at 30%. If so done, the diminution value of the land comes to Rs.42,705/- (Rs.5,000/- per gunta X 28.47 guntas X 30/100=42,705/)."
7. He also refers to the Guidelines dated 15.10.2025 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, wherein following is provided;
"2.2 Over time, the 1885 Act has undergone several amendments to accommodate advancements in communication technologies. This is evident in the current definition of 'telegraph' as stated in the 1885 Act, which reads:
"any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.
Explanation "Radio waves" or "Hertzian waves"
means electro magnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3,000 giga-cycles per second propagated in space without artificial guide"
8. He also refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited referred to -7- NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR supra, wherein at paragraph 28, the Apex Court has held as under;
"28. These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No:10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions, Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the District Judge concerned for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated 15-10-2015 in this behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines."
9. Thus, referring to above, he submits that no straight jacket formula can be evolved for the purpose of payment of compensation. However analysis of the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court read along with the Guidelines issued by the Central Government, indicate that there are two heads under which the compensation can be determined, namely (i) the portion of land which is used for the purpose of erection of tower; and (ii) the land which falls beneath the corridor (land falls over which the electricity lines are drawn). He submits under these two heads the compensation will be determined by the District Magistrate. If the petitioner is not satisfied, he has remedy to seek before -8- NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR the jurisdictional District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is one for the public purpose and cannot be found fault with.
10. Learned AGA appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the erection of tower is for the public purpose and the compensation would be determined by the respondent No.1 taking into consideration the judgments and the guidelines referred to above and request of the petitioner for determination of compensation would be considered in accordance with law.
11. Heard. Perused the records.
12. The first contention of petitioner is with regard to the term "Post" referred to under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as under;
"3. Definitions:-
(1) to (4) xxx (5) "post" means a post, pole, standard, stay, strut or other above ground contrivance for carrying, suspending or supporting a telegraph line;-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR
13. The holistic reading of the said provision would indicate that the term "Post" means and includes anything which is above ground, contrivance for carrying, suspending and supporting a telegraph line. Though, the term "Tower" is not specifically used, principle of ejusdem generis has to be applied. Read in that light, 'tower' would also fall within the category of expression or other above ground contrivance for carrying, suspending and supporting a telegraph line' . The said contention therefore cannot be countenanced.
14. As regards payment of compensation is concerned, consistent judicial pronouncements referred to above would indicate that there is absence of any specific legislation, though recommendations have been made to the Law Commission, to look into the matter. An observation at para 9.5 of the Law Commission report produced along with the memo dated 28.01.2026 would be relevant. Para 9.5 of the Report reads as under;
"9.5 The mandate of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is "full compensation" for all damage. With respect to the utilisation of any land for the purposes of the Telegraph Act, it is to be noted that such a land remains in the ownership of the landowner and there are no proceedings to acquire the same. In case of acquisition, full market value is to be payable since
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR the land does not remain with the owner and in fact becomes vested in the government after its compulsory acquisition. Hence, in the case of non- acquisition, the authority only gets the right of a user and need only pay compensation that is commensurate with the damage caused to the land in the exercise of this right."
15. Section 10(d) of the Act provides for payment of compensation to the person interested for any damage sustained by him. That is relatable to damage or destruction of the trees or any structure existing on the land. The question which has always been posed for adjudication is with regard to determination of compensation for reduction of utility of the land which falls within the corridor of the electricity line. Since the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, KPTCL and Chitradurga and Another vs. Doddakka had calculated the diminution of the value of the subject land at 30% which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, same have to borne in mind while determining the value of the area of the land which falls within/beneath the corridor.
16. As regards the portion of land where the tower is being sought to be constructed, the Deputy Commissioner may
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5390 WP No. 23632 of 2018 HC-KAR have to assess the full value of the property and pay the compensation. Needless to state if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, he is entitled to seek enhancement by preferring an application under Section 16(3) of the Act before the jurisdictional District Magistrate.
With the above observation, petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17