Dismissed¶71

The Executive Engineer v. H R Sathish

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025WP/3583/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Diminution of land value; high-tension transmission line corridor; electric tower; Section 16(3) Indian Telegraph Act 1885; Section 16; KPTCL; Deputy Commissioner Chitradurga; compensation Rs. 2,50,000 per acre; Rs. 3,44,247 full and final settlement; additional compensation Rs. 41,940 with 8% interest; coordinate-Bench decisions per incuriam; Doddakka 30% diminution guideline; W.P. No. 14288/2020 batch; writ petition dismissed; trial Court order confirmed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 12.09.2020 in Civil Miscellaneous No. 272 of 2021 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (award of Rs. 41,940/- with 8% interest per annum) is confirmed. ¶71

The Executive Engineer Vs H R Sathish — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court erred in awarding an additional sum of Rs. 41,940/- with interest towards diminution of land value when the petitioners had already paid Rs. 3,44,247/- as full and final settlement. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

There is no error in the reasoning of the trial Court; the award of additional compensation towards diminution in land value is justified and does not warrant interference.

¶69

Ratio / Principle

The Deputy Commissioner's order confined compensation to loss of crops/standing trees and surface damage; there was no assessment or separate evaluation of diminution in the value of the land, and this finding is borne out by the record.

¶64

Key takeaways

The coordinate-Bench decisions relied upon by the petitioners cannot aid them: they are distinguishable on the facts of the present case and are per incuriam and not applicable, since in those cases the Deputy Commissioner had already taken the diminution value of the land into account.ratio¶69
Applying the principle in Doddakka, where the owner retains title but the high-tension corridor permanently restricts full utilisation of the land, a uniform percentage must be applied to ensure just and equitable compensation for diminution in land value.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (K.S. Hemalekha, J.), 08.10.2025 — Writ Petition No. 3583 of 2025 (GM-KEB) under Articles 226 and 227 by the Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Major Works Division, Chitradurga, challenging the order dated 12.09.2020 in Civil Miscellaneous No. 272/2021 of the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, which partly allowed the respondent-landowner's claim under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and awarded Rs. 41,940/- with 8% interest per annum towards diminution of land value caused by erection of an electric tower and drawing of a transmission line across his land. HELD: (i) the Deputy Commissioner's compensation (Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre; Rs. 3,44,247/- paid) was confined to loss of crops/standing trees and surface damage, with no assessment of diminution in land value; (ii) the coordinate-Bench decisions relied on by the petitioners (Katappa; H.M. Shivanandaiah; Jayamma) were distinguishable on facts and per incuriam, not applicable; (iii) following Doddakka, a uniform percentage of market value must be paid as diminution value where the Deputy Commissioner has not quantified it. Writ petition dismissed; impugned order confirmed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3583 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-1, JCR CIRCLE, 3^RD CROSS (EAST) JCR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶8

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION-1, JCR CIRCLE, 3^RD CROSS (EAST) JCR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY MANJUNATHA SWAMY S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. …PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SMT RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

H.R. SATHISH S/O LATE H.V. RUDRANNA, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O GUILAL, NOW RESIDING AT TERUBEEDI, HIRIYURU TALUK-577501 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2020 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.272/2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioners assail the order dated 12.09.2020 in Civil Miscellaneous 272 of 2021 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned order, the trial Court partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘the Act’ for short) and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of ` 41,940/- along with 8% interest per annum from the date of drawing transmission line till the date of realisation.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶23

the trial Court erred in awarding an additional sum of 41,940/- with interest when the petitioners had already paid a total amount of 3,44,247/- towards full and final

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

settlement. It is contended that the respondent accepted the said compensation without any protest, and therefore, the award of further compensation is unwarranted. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, had already quantified and included the component of diminution of land value and crop damage in the compensation determined at ` 3,44,247/-, and thus the trial Court erred in adding an additional sum.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner clearly indicates that the compensation awarded pertained to loss of crops/standing trees and damages caused during the erection of the transmission line, and that the diminution of land value was not considered.

¶28

In support of their respective contentions, both sides relied on various coordinate Bench decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Executive

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Engineer and Another vs Katappa¹ , Similarly, in the cases

¶33

of Executive Engineer and Another vs H.M Shivanandaiah² , and Executive Engineer and Another vs Jayamma³ , (all disposed of on 09.09.2022), to contend that under identical circumstances, when the Deputy Commissioner had already taken diminution value of the land into account, the trial Court could not award additional compensation.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decisions of the two co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Executive Engineer and Another

¶35

vs Doddakka (Doddakka)⁴ and the batch matters in W.P.No. 14288/2020 and connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 19.04.2023, where this Court held that diminution land value must be taken at 30% when it has not been quantified by the Deputy Commissioner. To the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶36

Deputy Commissioner, while quantifying the compensation,

¶37

1 W.P. 5267 of 2021

¶38

2 W.P. 5284 of 2021

¶39

3 W.P. 5275 of 2021

¶40

4 W.P. 39979/2013 disposed of on 06.08.2014

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

had already taken the diminution value of the land at 100%,

¶45

and therefore, there was no scope for the trial Court to award any further compensation to the respondent.

¶46

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶47

contentions and perused the material on record.

¶48

It is undisputed that the petitioners have erected one electric tower and drew transmission line across the respondent’s land. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, by his order dated 03.02.2020 under Section 16 of the Act determined the compensation payable to the land owners at `.2,50,000/- per acre. The compensation determined by the Deputy Commissioner finds place at page 3 of the order which reads as under :

¶49

“D) «zÀÄåvï ¥Àæ¸ÀgÀt ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ ªÉÆUÀ¸Á¯É/PÁjqÁgÀUÉ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶50

d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀ¼À ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ «zÀÄåvï ¥Àæ¸ÀgÀt ªÀiÁUÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀ ªÉÆUÀ¸É¯ÉUÉ (PÁjqÁgï) ¥Àæw JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÁV gÀÆ.2.50 ®PÀëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀëzÀ LªÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀ) ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.”

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

As reflected in the Deputy Commissioner order, the compensation was confined to loss of crops/standing trees and also the incidental damage to the land. The Deputy Commissioner only quantified a nominal compensation, there was no assessment of diminution in the land’s value due to the restrictions imposed by the corridor. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Doddakka has held at paras 24 and 25 as under :

¶54

“24. As regards the diminution value of the land falling within the corridor, the learned District Judge having determined the market value of the land has awarded 50% of the same as diminution value. It cannot be disputed that though the farmer is not capable of growing trees underneath the corridor, he is not totally deprived of utilizing the land for carrying out other agricultural operations. He is entitled to grow other crops, which may not affect the high voltage transmission line. Though the farmer is deprived of the opportunity to utilize the land to its full potential and grow horticulture crops, particularly consisting of trees and other luxurious shrubs, he is capable of utilizing the land. The title of the land continues to vest in him. It is, no doubt, true that his access to the land and use of

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

the same by erecting any pole, shed or any other installation will be restricted. In a case like this where high voltage transmission line is drawn across the land, utilization of the other portion of the land is also affected. Therefore, all these factors have to be taken into consideration before determining the diminution in the land value on account of drawing of high voltage electrical line. If these relevant factors are borne in mind, particularly having regard to the photographs produced and the evidence adduced by the claimant – land owner, I find that 30% of the market value of the area affected shall have to be paid as diminution value of the land to the farmer.

¶58

25. The market value of the land has been determined at Rs.2,00,000/- per acre based on the evidence on record, particularly the certificate issued by the Sub Registrar. There is no scope to interfere with the valuation of the market value made by the learned District Judge. Therefore, the only modification that can be made in awarding the diminution value is that instead of 50% of the market value awarded by the learned District Judge, it has to be calculated at 30%. If so done, the diminution value of the land comes to Rs.42,705/(Rs.5,000/- per gunta X 28.47 guntas X 30/100 =42,705/)”

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

9. The principle underlying Doddakka’s case is that

¶63

although the land owner continues to retain title of partial use of land, the high tension corridor permanently restricts its full utilization, and therefore, a uniform percentage must be applied to ensure just and equitable compensation. The trial Court while determining the compensation has taken the guidelines that are enumerated in the case of Karnataka

¶64

Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Bengaluru and Others vs A.P Manoharachar⁵ and applying the said guidelines the compensation has been quantified ` 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

¶65

5 2015 (1) KCCR 245

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:39731 WP No. 3583 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

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 :

¶70

ORDER

¶71

(a) The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed .

¶72

(b) The impugned order dated 12.09.2020 in Civil Miscellaneous 272 of 2021 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is hereby confirmed.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶75

CKL

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

The Executive Engineer v. H R Sathish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. H R Sathish

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

Sri H v Narayan Swamy Vs Sri B R Lokanath

Smt Prema B S Vs Sri Vijaya N

M/S Kennametal India Limited Vs G N Jaiprakash

Smt Devarajamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Bruhan Mutta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Laxmamma Vs State of Karnataka