Karnataka High Court
Fransis P vs Mohammed Nasarulla on 17 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26604
WP No. 4302 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 4302 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. FRANSIS.P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
REGIONAL HEAD,
REFEX ENERGY LTD.,
NO.35/2, PARK MANOR,
PARK ROAD, TASKAR TOWN
BANGALORE - 01.
2. REFEX ENERGY LTD.,
NO.67, BAZULLA ROAD,
T.NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER.
RAGHU.C.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GODEKOTIMATH SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MOHAMMED NASARULLA
S/O M.A.JAMEEL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O PALAVALLI VILLAGE,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK-572 136.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26604
WP No. 4302 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Godekotimath Srikanth., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.
2. An emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 27.01.2022. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.
4. The facts are stated as under:-
It is stated that the respondent No.2 - M/s.Refex Energy Limited is a Company authorized to establish 33 KV and 220 KV Transmission line from power generation station to the nearby 220 K.V substation. The first respondent is the Regional Head of Bangalore Regional Office of M/s.Refex Energy Limited. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26604 WP No. 4302 of 2021 HC-KAR It is stated that on 30.08.2016, the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru issued order bearing No.MAG (1) CR 74/2015-16 and directed the respondent - Company for payment of compensation for different categories of tower structures and compensation towards cutting of different types of trees while drawing transmission line along with additional compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per acre to be paid to the land owners for laying the 220 KV and 33 KV Transmission Line.
The Company paid the compensation to the farmers in accordance with the guidelines of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru at the time of erecting poles and laying the transmission line. It is said that in some cases, the Company has paid more amount of compensation to the farmers than the guidelines amount given by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru and also guidelines given by the High Court of Karnataka in various cases.
It is stated that the claimant filed application for additional compensation in Civil Misc. No.5038/2017 and he is the land owner of the property bearing Sy.No.415/2, measuring -4- NC: 2025:KHC:26604 WP No. 4302 of 2021 HC-KAR 03 Acres 03 Guntas situated in Palavalli Village, Nagalamadike Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumakuru District.
It is further stated that the respondents have drawn 120 KV electric transmission line over the claimant's land. The Company has paid compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. It is contended by the landowner that the Company has paid meager amount of compensation. Hence, he sought for additional compensation.
The parties led evidence and the documents were exhibited. On the trial of the action, the Trial Court vide order dated 05.07.2019 allowed the petition in part and awarded enhanced compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of drawing of electric wire over the petition land till realization. Under these circumstances, the petitioners having left with the no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Counsel for the petitioners urged several contentions and placed reliance on the decision in the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL, CHITRADURGA AND -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26604 WP No. 4302 of 2021 HC-KAR ANOTHER VS DODDAKKA reported in ILR 2015 KAR 677, in so far as diminishing value of the land.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
7. I have perused Annexure-'C' with care. It is a Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada. The market value of the dry land is only Rs.60,000/- per acre. If the ratio of Doddakka's case is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then the order requires modification.
The total measurement of the land is 03 Acres 03 Guntas. The valuation of the land is to be taken as per Sub-Registrar Value i.e., Rs.60,000/- per Acre. It is needless to say that 01 Acre is equal to 40 guntas. So for 40 guntas, the valuation of the land will be Rs.60,000/-. In the present case, the entire extent of the land is 03 Acres 03 Guntas i.e., 123 guntas. The Company has made use of the land to an extent of 20 Guntas. Hence, calculation for 20 guntas will be Rs.60,000 X 20/40 = 30,000/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards valuation of land. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26604 WP No. 4302 of 2021 HC-KAR • 30% has to be deducted towards diminishing value of the land per acre. The value of land per acre is Rs.60,000/-. Hence, 30% of the diminishing value will be 60,000 X 30/100 = 18,000/-.
• Rs.18,000/- for 40 Guntas. • For 20 Guntas, it is 18,000 X 20/40= 9,000/-.
Hence, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards diminishing value of the land to the extent of 20 guntas.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the value of the land and a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards the diminishing value of the land. In total, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.39,000/-.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri in Civil Misc.No.5038/2017 is modified holding that the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.39,000/-.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26604 WP No. 4302 of 2021 HC-KAR
9. While addressing arguments, counsel Sri.Godekotimath Srikanth, submits that a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- has already been paid to the claimant in the year 2016. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.
Submission is noted. In this petition, the compensation is modified holding that the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.39,000/-. However, the Authority has paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. Hence, there is no need to pay any amount to the claimant.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8