M/S L P D Solar Power Private Limited Vs Sri Baji Sab

M/S L P D SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. 658/2, 2^ND FLOOR, F, 1^ST C MAIN ROAD, 40^TH CROSS, 8^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082. REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ISHWAR HEGDE.

¶10

M/s. L P D SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, OFFICE AT KALUVEHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, Digitally signed by CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537 GEETHAKUMARI REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARLATTAYA S SRI ISHWAR HEGDE.

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka 3. M/S L R K SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.658/8, 2^ND FLOOR, F, 1^ST C MAIN ROAD, 40^TH CROSS, 8^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 082, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ISHWAR HEGDE.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI GANAPATHY BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:36586 WP No. 5006 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI BAJI SAB, S/O SRI SANNA KHASIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KALUVEHALLI, GOWDRAHATTE, YADALAGATTE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 537.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(RESPONDENT - SERVED)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2021 MISC PETITION NO.752/2019 PASSED BY THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND CONSEQEUNTLY REJECT THE MISC PETITION NO.752/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:36586 WP No. 5006 of 2022

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Challenging order dated 20.11.2021 passed by I

¶29

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.752/2019, this petition is filed.

¶30

Sri Ganapathy Bhat, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in terms of Solar Power Resources Policy for years 2014 to 2021, State of Karnataka invited applications from land owners for establishment of 1 MW to 3 MW solar power plants. It was submitted that in pursuance of same, petitioners established 2 MW solar power plant at Sy.no.193/5 of Kaluvehalli village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District in about 12 Acres 21 guntas. In pursuance of same, a power purchase agreement was executed on 29.06.2015 between petitioners and BESCOM. For evacuation of generated power, a 11 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line was commissioned from petitioners' power generator installation to Grid. Said line incidentally passed on side of road and a portion of it passed over on land of respondent, on ground that he had sustained damage, respondent filed petition under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (‘ Act ’, for short) before District Court, numbered as Civil Misc.no.752/2019.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:36586 WP No. 5006 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

On appearance, petitioners' opposed petition by filing objections. Thereafter, learned District Court framed issues and recorded evidence. Respondent examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Record of Rights (' RoRs ' for short) pertaining to Sy.no.222/1 and Sub-Registrar Guidance Value (' SRGV ' for short) as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. Petitioners examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R7.

¶35

On consideration, learned District Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative; point no.2 by holding respondent entitled for Rs.42,501/- with interest at 6% per annum and point no.3 by allowing petition in part. Aggrieved thereby, present petition was filed.

¶36

It was firstly submitted RoRs of land of respondent - Annexure-J, showed nature of land as dry with no crop information. It was submitted, as per revised guidance value issued by Sub-Registrar, Challakere, value of 1 Acre of land in Kaluvehalli village during year 2018-2019 was Rs.75,000/-. However without any justification, learned District Judge assessed at Rs.2,501/- as compensation for 4.447 guntas of

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36586 WP No. 5006 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

land. Apart from same, learned District Judge awarded Rs.10,000/- per pole installed in respondent's land which was not justified.

¶40

It was submitted that poles installed were similar to distribution electricity poles which did not occupy large area as in case of tower. Even if an extent of 4 by 4 area is taken as area falling under said poles, for 4 pillars installed, total area occupied would be 64 sq.ft., which would be less than 1/10^th of a gunta. It was submitted that as per calculation of learned District Judge for damages, same would be 10% of Rs.562.5/which would be Rs.56/-. Therefore, award of Rs.10,000/- per pole by learned District Judge was not justified on said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused

¶42

material on record.

¶43

Respondent is served unrepresented.

¶44

From above it is seen, petitioners’ main grievance

¶45

against impugned order is that learned District Judge was not justified in awarding Rs.10,000/- per pole on ground that same

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36586 WP No. 5006 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

was without any basis. From above, there is no dispute about extent of land utilized or falling under corridor i.e., 4.447 guntas. Division Bench of this Court in W.A.no.1735/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025, has held diminution of value of land would be at 30%. Applying same, learned District Judge arrived at an amount of Rs.562.5/- per gunta and awarded Rs.2,501/as amount for corridor area.

¶49

Insofar as tower, normally tower installed Overhead Transmission Lines and have 4 footing and there would be severe restriction of user insofar as area falling under tower. However, perusal of photographs at Annexure-K series, would reveal that transmission lines installed are not on such towers, but on electricity poles. Even if an extent of 4 feet by 4 feet is taken as footing of such poles, for 4 poles installed in respondent's land, total area occupied would be 64 sq.ft., which would be less than 1/10^th of a gunta.

¶50

Thus, determination of compensation for tower/pole at Rs.10,000/- each by learned District Judge would be without any basis/contrary to material on record and as such, it would require interference. However taking note of fact that instead of

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:36586 WP No. 5006 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

paying compensation to respondent at time of drawing transmission lines, petitioners drove him to Court, it is found appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs which should be over and above compensation.

¶55

Thus, petition is allowed , impugned order dated 20.11.2021 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.752/2019 stands modified.

¶56

Respondent is held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,501/- towards corridor area and Rs.56/- towards area falling under 4 electricity poles and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs which shall be paid with interest at 8% per annum from date of petition till payment.

¶57

Amount in deposit to be transmitted to District Court for payment, excess amount if any, to be refunded to petitioners.

¶58

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶59

GRD

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

M/S L P D Solar Power Private Limited v. Sri Baji Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S L P D Solar Power Private Limited v. Sri Baji Sab

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

Union Bank of India Vs Mr. M..M. Kodandaram

Sri Yogesh S a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H S Krishnamurthy Vs Commissioner of Excise

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Smt. Kempalakshmamma

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri T. T. Lakshmaiah

The Executive Engineer Vs G. T. Thimmareddy @ G. T. Thippareddy @ Thippareddy