Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Karnataka Power Transmission ... vs A P Manoharachar on 7 August, 2014

The Executive Engineer vs B. H. Nagarajareddy @ Nagarajareddy on 8 October, 2025

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 ` 1,49,212/-. 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:39729 WP No. 1470 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 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Mallikarjuna. L on 8 October, 2025

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 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs D S Basavaraj @ Basavarajappa @ ... on 8 October, 2025

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 ` 2,99,660/-. 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 5 2015 (1) KCCR 245 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:39777 WP No. 33564 of 2024 HC-KAR are per incuriam and not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court finds no error in the reasoning of 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 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs Jayanna P on 8 October, 2025

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 ` ` 28,028/-. 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:39732 WP No. 1459 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 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer vs H R Sathish on 8 October, 2025

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 ` 41,940/-. 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 5 2015 (1) KCCR 245 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025 HC-KAR are per incuriam and not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court finds no error in the reasoning of 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 :
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Marappa vs The Executive Engineer on 31 July, 2019

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial Court has committed an error in determining the compensation of a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- per acre and in view of installation of power line, 30% of the value of the property is decreased. Such decision has been taken pursuant to the decision of this Court reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 245, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Bangalore Vs. A.P. Manoharachar.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document
1