K Nagaraj Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10283 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K. NAGARAJ, S/O K. KARAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMPURA VILLAGE, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHTRADURGA DISTRICT 577 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., BENGALURU, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE, CAUVERYBAVANA, BANGALORE 01.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶14

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB-DIVISION-1, KPTCL OFFICE, KPTCL, 3^RD CROSS (EAST) JCR CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA - 577 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CIVIL MISC NO.535/2018 MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND H PASSED

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN MISC NO.535/2018 BY ENHANCING THE DAMAGES WHICH IS JUST AND REASONABLE UNDER THE NEW LA ACT.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Challenging order passed by District Judge determining compensation under Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (' Act ' for short) payable for damages sustained by landowner/petitioner due to installation of 400 KV Power Line/Towers over petitioner's lands, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of land measuring 11 Acres 34 guntas, in Sy.no.67 of N.R.Kondapura village, Devasamudra Hobli, Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during year 2017, respondents installed 400 KV power line/tower over petitioner's land. It was submitted, same not only cause damage/destruction of crops grown on petitioner's land, but also led to acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at time of installation, respondents/authorities paid compensation only towards

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

damage to crops etc., but not towards diminution of value of land. Therefore, petitioner filed petition for determination of compensation for same, claiming that value of petitioner's land was Rs.5 Lakhs per acre and seeking for award of Rs.21 Lakhs with interest at 12% p.a.

¶29

Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.535/2018 and notices were issued.

¶30

On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed petitioner's claim.

¶31

Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following points for consideration:

¶32

1. Whether petitioner is entitled for damages/compensation under the head of decrease of the land in view of the installation of power line?

¶33

2. If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation?

¶34

3. What order?

¶35

Thereafter, petitioner deposed as PW.1 and got

¶36

marked Exhibits P.1 to P.4. Respondents no.1 got marked one document as Exhibit R.1.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

On consideration, point no.1 was answered in

¶41

affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by determining Rs.34,895/- as compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest at 6% per annum.

¶42

Aggrieved by said determination as being

¶43

inadequate, petitioner is before this Court.

¶44

It was firstly submitted, due to installation, petitioner was permanently prevented from cultivating land utilized for installation, which was akin to acquisition of land under provisions of The Right for Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, ('RFCTLARR Act', for short). Therefore, learned District Judge erred in taking Sub-Registrar Guidance Value (' SRGV ', for short) instead of market value of land while determining diminished value of land.

¶45

It was secondly submitted, fact that not only land directly falling under Towers and Lines, but also surrounding area suffered from restricted user and therefore required to be considered while determining compensation.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It was thirdly submitted, fact that restriction of user was perennial was also not considered.

¶50

It was lastly submitted, petitioner's land was adjacent to National Highway and therefore, consideration of 30% of SRGV instead of 50% was erroneous. On above grounds, impugned award called for interference.

¶51

Sri Shirish Krishna, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted, installation of Towers/Line by respondent authorities was in accordance with law after payment of damages to crops/trees/constructions as applicable, which was admitted.

¶52

It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation and there was no scope for interference.

¶53

It was submitted, acquisition of land under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and under RFCTLARR Act, differed from utilization of land for installation under provisions of Act. It was submitted, there was no deprivation of title or possession. Even after installation, owners could cultivate lands. Restriction of user was partial. Therefore,

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

provisions for assessment of compensation under Land Acquisition enactments would not apply.

¶57

It was submitted, in case of lands abutting Highways, Division Bench of this Court had upheld determination of diminished value of land at 50% of SRGV and in case of others at 30% of SRGV. And as determination of compensation was not only taking area directly coming under installations, but also area under restricted user, there was no scope for interference.

¶58

Insofar as claim of petitioner about land abutting Highway, attention was drawn to admission in crossexamination about not submitting any document to substantiate said fact.

¶59

Under above circumstances, there was no scope for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought dismissal of writ petition.

¶60

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶61

record.

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:29857 WP No. 10283 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

In view of above, point that would arise for

¶66

consideration is:

¶67

"Whether determination of compensation towards diminished value of land by District Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for interference?"

¶68

Facts and circumstances of present case as well as contentions urged by respective learned counsel have received consideration while dismissing W.P.no.6309/2022. Said findings would squarely apply to present case also.

¶69

Hence, for reasons stated in order passed by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025, point for consideration is answered in negative.

¶70

Consequently, this petition is also dismissed .

¶71

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶72

PSG/AV

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

K Nagaraj v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Nagaraj v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramachandraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

V. Subbanna Vs the Director of Agricultural Marketing

The Maratha Mandal English Medium School, Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs Executive Engineer

The Maratha Mandal Engineering College, Vs the State of Karnataka