Allowed¶64

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. G Nagarajappa

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2025WP/23770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 Sections 16(1) and 16(3); transmission line compensation; diminution/decrease in value of land; double compensation; 220/66/11 KV to 400 KV upgradation; tower base compensation; Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga; KPTCL; Civil Misc.No.177/2021; quashing of additional compensation of Rs.47,745/-; Karnataka High Court WP No. 23770 of 2024 (GM-KEB), decided 08.09.2025; Justice Ravi V Hosmani; respondent served and unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (Annexure-A) quashed. ¶64

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (Annexure-A) quashed.

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned District Judge's fresh assessment of compensation towards diminution in the value of the land, over and above compensation already determined and paid under the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 04.12.2018 in Section 16(1) proceedings, amounted to awarding double compensation (the grievance in the writ petition). +2 more

¶53

Court's answer

The learned District Judge, having observed that the respondent produced no document showing damage to crops, could not have proceeded to assess compensation towards diminished value of land, as the same was already determined and paid in terms of the Deputy Commissioner's order; assessing it again amounted to double compensation.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

There being no dispute about the extent of land utilized for corridor area and tower area, the compensation determined by the learned District Judge (market value Rs.2 Lakhs, 30% diminution) was much lesser than that determined by the Deputy Commissioner (market value Rs.2.3 Lakhs, 100% diminution), which was already paid by petitioners and received by respondent; hence there was no scope for further enhancement.

¶59

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 (Annexure-A) was unsustainable and stood quashed; consequently, the writ petition was allowed.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India filed by KPTCL and its engineers allowed; order dated 01.03.2024 of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.No.177/2021 — by which a landowner's petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was allowed and additional compensation of Rs.47,745/- was directed — quashed. Held (Ravi V Hosmani, J.): compensation towards diminution in the value of the land had already been determined by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga (order dated 04.12.2018, Exhibit R1) at Rs.1,03,500/- for the tower and Rs.2,30,000/- per acre towards diminished value considered at 100%, and was paid in full (Rs.2,86,499.73/-); the District Judge's re-assessment of the same head, on a lower basis (market value Rs.2 Lakhs per acre at 30% diminution), amounted to double compensation and left no scope for further enhancement. Respondent landowner remained served and unrepresented.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 23770 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE, REP BY M.D. KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009.

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, HADADI ROAD, DAVANAGERE.

¶11

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB-DIVISION 1, JCR BADAVANA, 3^RD CROSS , 1^ST FLOOR, CHITRADURGA TOWN.

¶12

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

¶13

(BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

G. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE G. KANAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KUNABEVU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 517.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW WRIT PETITION QUASHING ORDER DATED 01.03.2024 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS NO.177/2021 BY I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Challenging order dated 01.03.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 at Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

Smt.S Shubha, learned counsel for petitioners submitted during 2005-06, petitioners had drawn 220/66/11 KV Overhead Transmission Line over 6 Acres and 23 Guntas of land in Sy.no.20/2A4, situated at Kunabevu village, Turuvanuru Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District, belonging to respondent. At that time, Tower occupying 40 X 40 ft. was installed. During year 2018, petitioners upgraded transmission lines to 400 KV Overhead Transmission Lines. At that time, an order dated 04.12.2018 was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga,

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

and respondent was paid total sum of Rs.2,86,499.73/-. Despite same, respondent filed petition before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short) for recomputation of damages. Said petition was filed on premise that petitioner was growing groundnut, cotton, onion, sunflower and had intended to grow arecanut, coconut, banana, teak, jackfruit and other fruit bearing trees with irrigation facility from borewell and claimed that value of land had increased to Rs.5 Lakhs per acre and petitioners had paid Rs.50,000/- only as interim compensation and laid lines.

¶31

On appearance, petitioners had opposed claim

¶32

petition. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following issues:

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

3. What order?"

¶36

In trial, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and

¶37

got marked copy of Record of Rights (RoR), photographs and

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sub-Registrar Guidance Value (SRGV) as Exhibits P1 to P3. Petitioners examined its official as RW.1 and got marked copy of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, and memo of calculation as Exhibits R1 and R2.

¶42

On consideration, learned District Judge allowed petition and directed petitioners to pay additional compensation of Rs.47,745/-. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.

¶43

It was submitted, at time of consideration of petitioners' petition under Section 16(1) of Act for removal of obstruction, Deputy Commissioner had directed payment of compensation towards damages in following manner:

¶44

a) Firstly, for payment of compensation of Rs.1,03,500/- in respect of 'A' Tower; and b) Secondly, Rs.2,30,000/per acre towards diminished value of land considered at 100%.

¶45

It was submitted, in terms of said directions,

¶46

petitioners had paid entire value to respondent. Under such circumstances, determination of further compensation by

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

learned District Judge was contrary to law and sought for quashing of same.

¶50

Respondent-owner of land has remained served unrepresented.

¶51

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶52

record.

¶53

At outset, it is seen that petitioners' grievance against order passed by learned District Judge is that when petitioners had paid compensation fixed by Deputy Commissioner in course of proceedings under Section 16(1) of Act, which included diminution of value of land, assessment of said compensation once again and awarding same over and above compensation determined by Deputy Commissioner amounted to double compensation and sought for allowing writ petition.

¶54

Bare perusal of Exhibit R.1-order passed by Deputy Commissioner on 04.12.2018 would reveal that Deputy Commissioner had determined quantum of compensation to be paid at Rs.1,03,500/- in respect of 'A' Tower and Rs.2,30,000/-

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

per acre in respect of diminished value of land. While passing impugned order, learned District Judge has specifically observed that respondent did not produce any document to show that petitioners had caused damages to crops in his land. Having made such observation, learned District Judge could not have proceeded to assess compensation towards diminished value of land, as same was already determined and paid in terms of order passed by Deputy Commissioner.

¶59

In fact, computation of compensation by Deputy Commissioner is by taking market value of land at Rs.2.3 Lakhs whereas, learned District Judge assessed compensation by taking its market value at Rs.2 Lakhs. It is also seen that while Deputy Commissioner ordered for consideration of 100% for diminution, learned District Judge has taken it at 30%. There being no dispute about extent of land utilized for corridor area and tower area, compensation determined by learned District Judge being much lesser than compensation determined by Deputy Commissioner and which was already paid by petitioners and received by respondent, there would be no scope for further enhancement.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:35212 WP No. 23770 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

In view of above, impugned order dated 01.03.2024

¶64

passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc.no.177/2021 at Annexure-A would be unsustainable and stands quashed . Consequently, writ petition

¶65

is allowed .

¶66

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶67

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order allowing the respondent's petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for recomputation of damages and directing petitioners to pay additional compensation of Rs.47,745/-.¶26
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga · 01.03.2024
Prior proceeding
During 2005-06, petitioners drew a 220/66/11 KV Overhead Transmission Line over 6 Acres 23 Guntas in Sy.no.20/2A4, Kunabevu village, Turuvanuru Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, belonging to the respondent; a tower occupying 40 x 40 ft. was installed.¶27
Prior proceeding
In 2018, petitioners upgraded the transmission lines to 400 KV Overhead Transmission Lines; at that time the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga passed order dated 04.12.2018.¶27
Prior proceeding
In the proceedings under Section 16(1) of the Act for removal of obstruction, the Deputy Commissioner directed payment of compensation of Rs.1,03,500/- towards 'A' Tower and Rs.2,30,000/- per acre towards diminished value of land considered at 100%; petitioners submitted they paid the entire value to the respondent.¶44
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the Deputy Commissioner's order, the respondent was paid a total sum of Rs.2,86,499.73/-.¶30
Prior proceeding
Despite the payment, respondent filed a petition before I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for recomputation of damages.¶30
Prior proceeding
In the Section 16(3) petition, respondent claimed he was growing groundnut, cotton, onion and sunflower, intended orchard and other crops with borewell irrigation, valued the land at Rs.5 Lakhs per acre, and alleged only Rs.50,000/- interim compensation was paid.¶30
Prior proceeding
On the pleadings, the learned District Judge framed three issues: entitlement to damages for decrease in the value of land due to the power line, quantum of compensation, and order.¶32
Prior proceeding
At trial, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and marked RoR, photographs and SRGV as Exhibits P1 to P3; petitioners examined their official as RW.1 and marked the Deputy Commissioner's order and memo of calculation as Exhibits R1 and R2.¶41

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. G Nagarajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. G Nagarajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohan Prasad K C Vs the Assistant Executive Entginer (Ele)

Sri. D. M. Gopal Gowda Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Sri MD Saleem Vs the Secretary

The Executive Engineer (Ele), Vs Sri. K . T Girish @ Girish .K.T

Sri Krishne Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mudduraj Vs the State of Karnataka