Seenappa @ Srinivas Vs Kptcl

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MIS NO.248/2016.MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNX-G AND H PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 1st ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA ON 2nd FEBRUARY 2018 IN MIS NO.248/2016.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Challenging order dated 02.02.2018 passed by

¶27

Special I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc. No.248/2016 at Annexures-G and H, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is owner of 3 Acres of land in Sy.no.48/P5 of Ganjalagunte Village, Hiriyur Taluq, Chitradurga District, over which respondents had drawn 220 KV High Tension Power Line. It was submitted that at time of drawing of line, damage was caused to standing crops and trees and installation lead to diminution of value of land. It was submitted though respondents had granted compensation of Rs.42,432/same was not adequate. Therefore, petitioner had filed application under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) before learned District Judge. On appearance, respondents contested same. After trial, learned District Judge assessed compensation and passed order and award as per Annexures G and H. Dissatisfied with same, present petition was filed. It was submitted, only

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ground urged in this writ petition was at time of assessment of compensation, learned District Judge had not taken actual market value as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and instead assessed compensation by referring to Sub-Registrar Guidelines Value (hereinafter referred to as 'SRGV' for short), which had constrained petitioner to approach this Court.

¶32

On other hand, Smt.Padma S. Uttur, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted contention that for assessment of compensation as per provisions of land Acquisition Enactments was considered and rejected by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025 and submits that same would hold good for this petition also.

¶33

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused writ petition.

¶34

Since only ground urged in this petition is that learned District Judge had assessed compensation based on SRGV instead of Market Value while computing diminution value of

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:34142 WP No. 24426 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

land and said contention has been considered and rejected by this Court in WP no.6309/2022 disposed of on 01.08.2025, present petition would not merit consideration. Besides, it is seen that petitioner had himself sought to rely on SRGV and except said material, there was no other evidence to substantiate actual Market Value would also lead to conclusion that, no exception to orders at Annexures G and H can be taken. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

¶39

Sd /- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶40

DN

Seenappa @ Srinivas v. Kptcl

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seenappa @ Srinivas v. Kptcl

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

Parameshawarappa @ Bapurada Parameshwarappa Vs the Executive Engineer

H R Venkateshachari Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Pramilamma Vs the Executive Engineer

Kavyamani M M Vs the Managing Director

Nsl Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Matheen Vs the State of Karnataka