Dismissed¶78

The Executive Engineer v. Mahanthappa @ Mahanthesh N @ Mahantheshi

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WP/5044/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Diminution in land value compensation for high-tension transmission line/tower; Section 16(3) Indian Telegraph Act 1885; KPTCL; 220 KV transmission line and tower; crop damage compensation versus diminution in land value; Deputy Commissioner compensation order dated 04.12.2018; Civil Court jurisdiction to award differential compensation; Civil Misc. No.277/2019, Chitradurga; writ petition dismissed; Doddakka (W.P. 39979/2013) relied upon. Neutral citation: NC: 2025:KHC:52655.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc. No.277/2019 confirmed, upholding the award of additional diminution compensation of Rs. 1,19,363 with 8% interest to the respondent. ¶78

The Executive Engineer Vs Mahanthappa @… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶78

Issue for consideration

Whether the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 04.12.2018 quantified or awarded diminution in land value, or covered only crop damage and incidental loss, and consequently whether the Trial Court was justified in awarding diminution compensation under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

The sum of Rs. 1,83,000/- awarded by the Deputy Commissioner was not towards diminution in the value of the land but purely towards crop damage and related incidental loss based on the agricultural assessment; the Deputy Commissioner never addressed the diminution component.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of determination of diminution value by the Deputy Commissioner, the land owner's statutory right under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act to seek adjudication of sufficient compensation remains unaffected; the Civil Court's jurisdiction under Section 16(3) specifically extends to determining whether adequate compensation has been granted and, if not, to awarding the differential amount.

¶66

Key takeaways

Diminution in the value of land is a recognized head of compensation arising from the permanent imposition of transmission corridors and the resulting operational restrictions on the use of land; the Trial Court was justified in assessing and awarding the diminution value on the basis of the evidence placed before it.ratio¶67
The Deputy Commissioner has in several instances been passing similar orders restricting assessment solely to crop damage without determining diminution in land value; Ex.R1 (order dated 04.12.2018) confined the enquiry only to crop compensation and did not address the permanent impairment caused to the land, so the Trial Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act to award diminution compensation.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (K.S. Hemalekha, J.) dismissed the writ petition filed by KPTCL's Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer challenging the order dated 17.08.2022 of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc. No.277/2019, which awarded the respondent land owner additional diminution-value compensation of Rs. 1,19,363 with 8% interest under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for a 220 KV transmission line/tower erected over his land. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 04.12.2018 (Ex.R1), under which Rs. 1,83,000 was paid, dealt only with crop damage and incidental loss and did not quantify or award diminution in land value; the land owner's statutory right under Section 16(3) to seek adjudication of sufficient compensation remained unaffected, and the Civil Court's jurisdiction extends to determining whether adequate compensation has been granted and, if not, awarding the differential. Observing the Deputy Commissioner's repeated practice of confining assessment to crop damage alone, and relying on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Executive Engineer and Another vs Doddakka (W.P. 39979/2013, disposed of on 06.08.2014), the Court upheld the Trial Court's diminution award, dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the impugned order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.5044 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION 1, JCR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL, SUB-DIVISION 1, JCR EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS (EAST), CHITRADURGA. ...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

MAHANTHAPPA @ MAHANTHESH .N @ MAHANTHESHI S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT KYADIGERE VILLAGE, KYADIGERE POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577524. ...RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.277/2019 PASSED BY 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS CIVIL MISC NO.277/2019.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners-Karnataka Power Transmission

¶25

Corporation Limited (KPTCL) seek to challenge the order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Court' for short) in Civil Misc. No.277/2019 whereby the Court awarded diminution value compensation in favour of the respondent.

¶26

Respondent (Land owner) filed Civil Misc. No.277/2019 under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Telegraph Act’ for short), claiming additional compensation for alleged loss caused due to the installation of 220 KV transmission line / tower over his land bearing Sy. No.536/1P3 measuring 03 acres 26 guntas situated at D.S. Halli, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. The ground urged by the respondent in the petition was that the KPTCL erected towers over about 1 acre of his land, destroyed standing crops, reduced the fertility

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

and market value of the land and sought `32,00,000/with interest for diminishing of the land value.

¶31

The petitioners (KPTCL) filed objections

¶32

contending that they have already paid a sum of `1,83,000/- as full and final compensation for the diminution land value as per the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 04.12.2018, and the respondent accepted the compensation without protest, that no crops existed on the land at the time of drawing the line in 2018.

¶33

The Trial Court partly allowed the miscellaneous petition and awarded additional compensation of `1,19,363/- with 8% interest.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersKPTCL and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- claimant.

¶35

Petitioners’ contention:

¶36

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶37

the full compensation has already been paid towards the

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

diminution in land value as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for a sum of `1,83,000/-. The compensation has been voluntarily received by the respondent without any objections and the respondent never challenged Ex.R1. Hence, reopening the compensation is impermissible. It is submitted that once the diminution land value was assessed and paid, awarding additional compensation amount towards diminution would amount to duplication. The impugned order has no finding on the Deputy Commissioner's assessment and this amounts to the perversity, which warrants interference by this Court.

¶41

Respondent's contention:

¶42

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent is the owner and cultivator of land bearing Sy. No.536/1P3 measuring 3 acres 26 guntas, wherein various crops were being grown. The KPTCL destroyed crops over an extent of 1 acre while erecting 220 KV towers, resulting in substantial loss, reduced fertility and decrease in the market value of the

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

land. The respondent therefore claimed compensation towards the diminution in value. The Trial Court, after noticing that the diminution value was not awarded by the Deputy Commissioner, awarded diminution which is justified and warrants no interference.

¶46

This Court has carefully considered the

¶47

contentions urged and perused the material on record more particularly, the Deputy Commissioner's order.

¶48

The Deputy Commissioner, while passing the order dated 04.12.2018, did not quantify or award diminution value payable for the loss affected by the installation of 220 KV transmission line and tower. The amount of `1,83,000/- relied upon by the petitioners was not awarded as a diminution in the value of the land, but was only towards crop damage and incidental loss caused at the relevant time. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court

¶49

in the case of Executive Engineer and Another vs

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Doddakka¹ (Doddakka) has held at paragraph Nos.24 and

¶54

25 as under:

¶55

“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 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

¶56

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

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

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.

¶60

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/)”

¶61

In the absence of determination of the

¶62

diminution value by the Deputy Commissioner, the statutory right of the land owner under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act to seek adjudication on ‘ sufficient

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

compensation remains unaffected’ . The jurisdiction of the

¶66

Civil Court under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act specifically extends to determining whether the adequate compensation has been granted and, if not, to award the differential amount. Since diminution in the value of land

¶67

is a recognized head of compensation arising from the permanent imposition of transmission corridors and the resulting operational restrictions on the use of land, the Trial Court was justified in assessing and awarding the diminution value on the basis of the evidence placed before it.

¶68

The Deputy Commissioner's order contains details of the crop items, varieties, extent of area affected, valuation of crop loss, and the compensation payable for such crop damage. The calculations in the order relate only to the agricultural crops destroyed during the erection of 220 KV towers and transmission lines. There is no discussion, calculation, quantification of the reduction in market value of the land, loss of utility due to the

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

transmission corridor, permanent user restrictions, tower footprint, or right of way related diminution.

¶72

This Court has also observed that the Deputy Commissioner, in several instances, has been passing similar orders restricting the assessment solely to crop damage without undertaking any determination of diminution in the value of the land arising from the installation of high-tension transmission lines and towers. The order dated 04.12.2018 (Ex.R1) is yet another example of this pattern, wherein the Deputy Commissioner confined the enquiry only to crop compensation and did not address the permanent impairment caused to the land. In view of such repeated omissions by the Deputy Commissioner to assess diminution in value, the Trial Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act to award compensation for diminution based on the evidence placed before it.

¶73

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:52655 WP No. 5044 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The sum of `1,83,000/- as awarded by the

¶76

Deputy Commissioner was not towards the diminution in the value of the land but, purely towards crop damage and related incidental loss, based on the agricultural assessment. In view of the Deputy Commissioner having failed to address this component at all, the Trial Court, was fully justified in awarding compensation towards diminution in the value of the land. Relying on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Doddakka’s case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was right in granting such compensation, and therefore, this Court pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i. The writ petition is dismissed .

¶79

ii. The impugned order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Civil Misc. No.277/2019 is hereby confirmed .

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶82

MBM/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3.1

The Executive Engineer v. Mahanthappa @ Mahanthesh N @ Mahantheshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. Mahanthappa @ Mahanthesh N @ Mahantheshi

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 Ravikumar Vs Sri M K Balakrishnan

Sri N C Venkatesh Vs the Commissioner

Sri.M. Narasimha Swamy Vs the State Ofkarnataka

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt.S.Sunand @ Sunandamma

Sri Chenappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs Thippeswamy S @ Thippeswamy