Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs a S Jayanth

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WP QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 1.03.2024 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 176/2021 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DIST AND SESSION JUDGE CHITRADURGA (ANNEXURE-A).

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Challenging order dated 01.03.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.no.176/2021 and award drawn, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Smt. S Shubha, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that during year 2018, petitioners had drawn 220 KV Overhead Transmission Lines from Hiremallanahole to Chitradurga Sub-station. Alleging that respondent was owner of 7 Acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.no.85/7 of Kunabevu village, Turuvanuru Hobli, Chitradurga and said line had passed over his land with installation of one tower, which had led to

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37567 WP No. 28166 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

diminution of value of his land, respondent had filed application before District Court, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.no.176/2021 under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short). It was stated therein that compensation directed by Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, on 04.12.2018 i.e., Rs.1,88,955/towards area falling under Corridor and Rs.1,03,500/- towards installation of tower was inadequate and sought enhancement.

¶33

On appearance, petitioners had opposed petition by filing objections. District Judge had thereafter framed following issues,

¶34

"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?

¶35

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

¶36

3. What order?"

¶37

In trial, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Record of Rights ('RoR') of his land as Ex.P1, Photograph as Ex.P2 and Sub-Registrar Guidance Value extract ('SRGV') as Ex.P3. Petitioners examined its official as RW.1 and

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:37567 WP No. 28166 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

got marked order passed by Deputy Commissioner on 04.12.2018 as Ex.R1 and memo of calculation as Ex.R2.

¶42

On consideration, District Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing petition in part and enhancing compensation by Rs.49,290/- with interest at 8% p.a. Assailing same, this petition was filed.

¶43

It was submitted, while passing impugned order, District Judge had determined market value of land as per SRGV at Rs.2.3 Lakhs per acre. He had also referred to order passed by Deputy Commissioner as per Ex.R1, wherein market value of land considered was Rs.2,30,000/- per acre. Apart from above, petitioners also paid Rs.1,03,500/- towards installation of 'A' type tower. Thus, compensation paid by petitioners was more than entitlement. Nevertheless, District Judge ventured to assess compensation by taking market value of land at Rs.2 Lakhs extent of diminution at 30% and awarding Rs.49,290/- for total area utilized at 32.86 Guntas. Assessment by learned District Judge would be lower than that and without

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:37567 WP No. 28166 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

giving credit to earlier payment, impugned award was passed and same would be unsustainable.

¶48

On other hand, Sri NR Rangegowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent opposed writ petition. Relying upon decision of this Court in WP no.14288/2020 and connected matters disposed of on 19.04.2023, it was submitted, Deputy Commissioner had determined damages sustained to crops at time of drawing lines and not towards diminution of value of land. Respondent's application being for compensation towards diminution of value of land, order passed by learned District Judge did not call for interference. It was submitted that since quantum of enhancement was negligible amount, same would not call for any interference. On said grounds, sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶49

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.

¶50

From above, it is seen petitioners' grievance against

¶51

order/award passed by learned District Judge in a petition filed under Section 16 (3) of Act at Annexure-A is that petitioners had paid compensation to respondent's land, accepting order passed by Deputy Commissioner at Ex.R1 and that

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:37567 WP No. 28166 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

determination of compensation by learned District Judge was lesser than said compensation and learned District Judge had not accounted for compensation paid earlier. While respondent seeks to sustain order on ground that compensation ordered by Deputy Commissioner was only towards damage to crops and not towards diminution of value of land.

¶56

Perusal of order passed by Deputy Commissioner at Ex.R1 produced herein at Annexure-B would reveal that Deputy Commissioner had fixed value of land falling under tower at Rs.1,03,500/- and damage caused to crops or lands at time of drawing of overhead transmission line at Rs.2,30,000/- per acre. Drawing of 220 KV overhead transmission line over respondent's land occupying an extent of 32.86 guntas in year 2018 is not in dispute. Payment of compensation Rs.1,88,955/at time of drawing line is also not in dispute. Though respondent contended that compensation determined by Deputy Commissioner was towards damage caused to standing crops, there is no material placed to establish that respondent sustained any damage to standing crops at time of drawing line. Ex.P1 - RoR is admittedly for period subsequent to laying of transmission lines. Ex.P2 being photograph and Ex.P3 being

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:37567 WP No. 28166 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

SRGV extract would not be of any assistance for determination of fact whether there was any standing crop in respondent's

¶61

land at time of drawing of overhead transmission line and whether damage was caused to it and to what extent.

¶62

Though learned counsel for respondent relied on decision of this Court in WP no.14288/2020 and connected matters disposed of on 19.04.2023, to contend that determination of compensation by Deputy Commissioner was towards damage to crops/trees and not towards diminution of value of land, perusal of said order does not indicate any ratio or proposition of law, to said effect. Therefore, same would not yield any benefit to respondent. While Deputy Commissioner directed petitioners to pay compensation by taking value of land at Rs.2,30,000/- per acre, determination of compensation by learned District Judge by taking Rs.2 Lakhs per acre as market value. Extent of diminution of value of land having been fixed by Division Bench of this Court in WA no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025, is at 30%, same is rightly applied by learned District Judge. When compensation paid by petitioners as per order of Deputy Commissioner is by taking higher market value at Rs.2,30,000/-, apart from Rs.1,03,500/-

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37567 WP No. 28166 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

to be paid towards area falling under tower, learned District Judge would require to account for same and give finding whether enhancement is called for. As per order of District Judge, petitioners have paid more compensation than respondent was entitled to. However, as there is challenge only against enhancement of compensation, they would be entitled for relief only to said extent. Consequently, Writ petition is allowed , impugned order and award dated 01.03.2024 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in C.Misc.no.176/2021 stands quashed.

¶66

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶67

AV

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. a S Jayanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. a S Jayanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Spoonability LLP Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Vishweshwaraiah Vs Executive Engineer (Ele.) (v)

Iqbal Abdul Kader Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Powergrid Corporation of India Limited Vs L. Venkatappa @ Venkatappa

Sri P N Sridhar Vs the Secretary

M/S. S.R.S. Enterprises Vs the Director of