Gowramma Vs the Executive Engineer

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MIS NO.117/2016 MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE - H AND J PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN MIS.NO.117/2016 ON 3.11.2017.

¶23

THIS PETITION, 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 03.11.2017 passed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.117/2016, this petition is filed.

¶27

Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was owner of 5 Acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.no.25/P3 of Jattalahalli village, Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, over which respondents had drawn 66 KV High Tension Power Line with installation of one Tower in petitioner’s land. Due to same, petitioner had not only suffered damage to crops, but land had

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35686 WP No. 43748 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

also suffered diminution of value. At time of drawing line, petitioner was paid sum of Rs.33,768/-, which was grossly inadequate. Therefore, he filed application seeking enhancement of compensation under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (' Act ', for short) before learned District Judge.

¶31

On appearance, respondents had contested same by filing objections. Learned District Judge had framed issues and recorded evidence. Petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked copies of Record of Rights and Sub-Registrar Guidance Value Extract (' SRGV ' for short) as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. Respondents did not enter witness-box, but got marked copy of memo of particulars as Ex.R1 with consent.

¶32

On consideration, learned District Judge had allowed petition in part and enhanced compensation by Rs.47,000/- with interest at 8% per annum thereon. Not satisfied with compensation, present petition was filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at time of drawing line, amount paid by respondents was only

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:35686 WP No. 43748 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

towards damages sustained to crops and not towards diminution of value of land. It was submitted that as per Annexure-F - Dishaank App Screenshot, land bearing Sy.no.25 of Jattalahalli village was adjacent to National Highway.

¶38

It was submitted that in case of adjacent land bearing Sy.no.24/5 of Jattalahalli village, which was also used for drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines, owner of land therein had filed Misc.no.114/2015 before Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. Said petition was allowed on 08.08.2016 by enhancing compensation taking market value of land adjacent to National Highway at Rs.10,00,000/-. It was submitted, since petitioner's land was similarly situated, said valuation was required to be applied to petitioner's land also. It was submitted said order had attained finality. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶39

On other hand, Smt.Shubha S., learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. It was submitted, petition would be untenable on ground that there was no fresh or additional usage of land for drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines and

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:35686 WP No. 43748 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

it was a case for upgradation of lines. Therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for compensation.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record.

¶45

From above, utilization of petitioner's land for drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines by respondents, petitioner sustaining damages and filing application for determination of same before District Court under Section 16(3) of Act is not in dispute. Though learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary contention that due to upgradation of transmission lines, petitioner would not be entitled for any compensation. Said contention was apparently not urged before District Court and in any case, respondents have not questioned award. Therefore, same requires to be rejected. Only basis for seeking enhancement is petitioner's contention that petitioner's land was adjacent to National Highway.

¶46

Perusal of objections filed by respondents before District Court at Annexure-B would indicate that there is no

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35686 WP No. 43748 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

clear denial of same. Though petitioner may not have substantiated her assertion by producing relevant material before District Court, she relied upon photographs at Annexures-E, E1 and Screenshot of Dishaank App indicates Sy.no.25 as being adjacent to National Highway. It is also seen that Sy.no.24 is adjacent to Sy.no.25. Petitioner is placing reliance on similar award passed in Misc.no.114/2015 at Annexure-K.

¶50

Perusal of same would reveal that in case of adjacent land i.e. Sy.no.24/5 of Jattalahalli village, learned District Court had taken market value of land at Rs.10,00,000/as it was adjacent to National Highway. Since petitioner's land is similarly situated, said value has to be extended to petitioner's case also. There is no dispute about extent of land utilized for drawing up transmission lines and laying of power i.e. at 32.02 guntas. Division bench of this Court in W.A.no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025 has held diminution of value of land due to Overhead Transmission Lines would be at 30%. Apart from determining compensation towards diminution value of land, learned District Court had

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:35686 WP No. 43748 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

awarded Rs.10,000/- additionally towards installation of tower in petitioner's land.

¶55

Thus, re-computation of compensation would be as

¶56

follows:

¶57

Rs.10,00,000/- per acre X 30% of diminution of value of land = Rs.3,00,000/- per acre which would be Rs.7,500/per gunta. For 32.02 guntas it would be Rs.2,40,150/- + Rs.10,000/- towards installation of tower. Totally, Rs.2,50,150/- .

¶58

In view of above, order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.117/2016, requires to be modified. Petitioner would be entitled for enhancement of compensation. However, taking note of fact that writ petition is filed after delay of two years without any acceptable explanation, it is found appropriate to deny interest for period of two years. Hence, following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. Writ petition is allowed in part. Compensation determined by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35686 WP No. 43748 of 2019

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.117/2016 is modified.

¶64

ii. Petitioner is held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,150/with interest at 8% per annum from date of petition excluding two years being delay in approaching this Court.

¶65

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶66

GRD

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Gowramma v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowramma v. the Executive Engineer

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.C. S. Phanichandra Vs the Commissioner

M/S Solarone Energy Private Limited Vs Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

M/S Micro Labs Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Sheetal K Vs the Commissioner of Excise

M.R. Shivalingaswamy Vs the Commissioner of Excise

N Gopi Vs the Managing Director