Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Mallikarjuna. L on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39730
WP No. 1603 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.1603 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL, JCR CIRCLE,
3RD CROSS (EAST)
JCR EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA-577501
REPRESENTED BY MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL, JCR CIRCLE,
3RD CROSS (EAST)
JCR EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA-577501
REPRESENTED BY MANJUNATHA SWAMY
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
MAHALAKSHMI B M ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SMT RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
MALLIKARJUNA .L
S/O LATE NINGAPPA @ LINGAREDDY,
AGED 49 YEARS,
R/O DODDASIDDAVVANAHALLI,
KYADIGERE POST, D S HALLI POST,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577524.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39730
WP No. 1603 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 04.09.2024 IN CIVIL MISC NO.258/2020 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners assail the order dated 04.09.2024 in Miscellaneous 258 of 2020 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short 'the trial Court'). By the impugned order, the trial Court partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('the Act' for short) and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of ` 2,14,050/- along with 8% interest per annum from the date of drawing transmission line till the date of realisation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erred in awarding an additional sum of ` 2,14,050/- with interest when the petitioners had already paid a total amount of ` 5,43,081/- towards full and final -3- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR settlement. It is contended that the respondent accepted the said compensation without any protest, and therefore, the award of further compensation is unwarranted. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, had already quantified and included the component of diminution of land value and crop damage in the compensation determined at ` 5,43,081/-, and thus the trial Court erred in adding an additional sum.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner clearly indicates that the compensation awarded pertained to loss of crops/standing trees and damages caused during the erection of the transmission line, and that the diminution of land value was not considered.
4. In support of their respective contentions, both sides relied on various coordinate Bench decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Executive -4- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR Engineer and Another vs Katappa1, Similarly, in the cases of Executive Engineer and Another vs H.M Shivanandaiah2, and Executive Engineer and Another vs Jayamma3, (all disposed of on 09.09.2022), to contend that under identical circumstances, when the Deputy Commissioner had already taken diminution value of the land into account, the trial Court could not award additional compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decisions of the two co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Executive Engineer and Another vs Doddakka (Doddakka)4 and the batch matters in W.P.No. 14288/2020 and connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 19.04.2023, where this Court held that diminution land value must be taken at 30% when it has not been quantified by the Deputy Commissioner. To the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Deputy Commissioner, while quantifying the compensation, 1 W.P. 5267 of 2021 2 W.P. 5284 of 2021 3 W.P. 5275 of 2021 4 W.P. 39979/2013 disposed of on 06.08.2014 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR had already taken the diminution value of the land at 100%, and therefore, there was no scope for the trial Court to award any further compensation to the respondent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.
7. It is undisputed that 220 KV transmission line was drawn across the respondent's land. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, by his order dated 04.12.2018 under Section 16 of the Act determined the compensation payable to the land owners at `. 2,30,000/- per acre. The compensation determined by the Deputy Commissioner finds place at paragraph 3 of the order which reads as under :
"3. ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÀ½UÉ ºÁ¤UÉƼÁîUÀĪÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨É¼ÉUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ¥ÀªÀgï ¯ÉÊ£ï J¼ÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è d«ÄäUÉ DUÀĪÀ ºÁ¤ §UÉÎ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉ d«ÄäUÉ C¢üPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÁV gÀÆ.2.30 ®PÀëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä wªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ."
8. As reflected in the Deputy Commissioner order, the compensation was confined to loss of crops/standing trees -6- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR and also the incidental damage to the land. The Deputy Commissioner only quantified a nominal compensation, there was no assessment of diminution in the land's value due to the restrictions imposed by the corridor. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Doddakka has held at paras 24 and 25 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 the 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 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR 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.
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/)"
9. The principle underlying Doddakka's case is that although the land owner continues to retain title of partial -8- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR use of land, the high tension corridor permanently restricts its full utilization, and therefore, a uniform percentage must be applied to ensure just and equitable compensation. The trial Court while determining the compensation has taken the guidelines that are enumerated in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Bengaluru and Others vs A.P Manoharachar5 and applying the said guidelines the compensation has been quantified at ` 2,14,050/-. This Court further finds that the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, Deputy Commissioner's order reveals that only crop loss and surface damage were assessed, and there was no separate evaluation of the diminution in value of the land. Consequently, the contention of the petitioners that the earlier writ petitions were decided in their favour and the compensation towards diminution value awarded by Courts had been set aside, cannot aid the petitioners, as decisions are per incuriam and not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court finds no error in the reasoning of 5 2015 (1) KCCR 245 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:39730 WP No. 1603 of 2025 HC-KAR the trial Court. The finding that diminution in land value was not included in Deputy Commissioner's determination is borne out by the record. The award of additional compensation is justified and does not warrant any interference and this Court pass the following :
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
(b) The impugned order dated 04.09.2024 in Miscellaneous 258 of 2020 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62