The Executive Engineer (Ele), Vs Sri. K . T Girish @ Girish .K.T

SRI. K . T GIRISH @ Location: High GIRISH .K.T @ GIRISH, Court of Karnataka AGRICULTURAL, S/O SRI N THIPPESWAMY, @ THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.98, IUDP LAYOUT, 8^TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA TOWN 577 501.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR CONNECTED RECORDS RELATING TO ANNEXURE-N DATED 09/02/2021 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.278/2019 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL 2^ND ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA, QUASH ANNEXURE-N DATED 09/02/2021 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC. NO.278/2019 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL 2^ND ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Challenging order dated 09.02.2021 passed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.278/2019, this petition is filed.

¶24

Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that respondent was owner of 5 Acres in Sy.no.539/2B, 5 Acres 37 guntas in Sy.no.539/2A1, 9 Acres 35 guntas in Sy.no.542/1 and 5 Acres in Sy.no.542/2 of D.S. Halli

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. It was submitted that petitioners had earlier drawn 220 KV Single Circuit Overhead Transmission Lines on said lands. And in year 2018, intended to upgrade it to 220/66 KV Double Circuit Lines by dismantling earlier lines. As there was obstruction, petitioners had approached, District Judge for removal thereof. At that time, Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga (' DC ', for short) had passed order at Annexure-L determined amount of Rs.1,03,500/- for area falling under 'A' Tower, Rs.2,30,000/- per acre towards damages. As per same, petitioners had paid sum of Rs.8,69,352/- to respondent and drew power lines. Claiming to be dissatisfied with said amount, respondent filed petition for determination of damages, under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (' Act ' for short) before learned District Judge, Chitradurga.

¶28

On appearance, petitioners filed objections, specifically stating that drawing of transmissions lines was after dismantling earlier lines, therefore, respondent would not be entitled for fresh compensation. Moreover, as respondent had received compensation as per order of DC. Though, respondent

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

contended about damage to onion crop, entries in Record of Rights (' RoRs ' for short) for year 2018-19 produced as Annexures-D to G bore entries of onion crop only in 5 Acres in Sy.no.542/2. It was also submitted, there was no new/additional utilization of respondent's land as Overhead Transmission Lines were drawn by dismantling earlier transmission lines. Therefore, learned District Judge was not justified in enhancing compensation. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶33

Sri R. Shashidara, learned counsel for respondent

¶34

opposed petition. It was submitted, there was no assertion about drawing of transmission lines on respondent's lands earlier and whether compensation was paid or otherwise. It was further submitted, DC had determined compensation due to damages to crops and therefore, learned District Judge was justified in assessing compensation towards diminution of value of land. As such impugned order did not call for interference.

¶35

Moreover, RoR at Annexure-G mentioned about

¶36

respondent having grown onion crops in lands and also stated in cross-examination that there was failure on part of Revenue

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Authorities to mention crops in RoRs, which would not debar respondent from maintaining claim for damages. It was submitted, even specific ground about upgrading of transmission lines was without utilizing additional area, was also not specifically urged. On said ground sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶41

Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition and material on record.

¶42

From above, it is seen that petitioners' grievance against order passed by learned District Judge, allowing petition filed by respondent under Section 16(3) of Act, is on ground that respondent's land already had Overhead Transmission Lines drawn in year 1980-81, which was upgraded in year 2018-19. It is also contended that DC had determined compensation towards diminution of value of land as per Annexure-L and as respondent was paid amount as per said order, there was no occasion for District Court to assess compensation once again.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Thus, point that would arise for consideration is : "Whether order passed by learned District Judge under Section 16(3) of Act would be sustainable?

¶46

Insofar as first ground perusal of para no.9 of objections filed by petitioners produced herein as Annexure-B, would reveal that petitioners have taken specific stand about having drawn Overhead Transmission Lines over respondent's land in year 1980-81. But, specific issue is not framed. Even during cross-examination of PW.1, suggestion was made about upgradation of transmission lines. This would indicate that petitioners had urged specific contention about non-entailment of compensation, as there was mere upgradation of transmission lines.

¶47

Insofar as alternative contention that compensation was paid as per order of DC leaving no scope for enhancement. Perusal of order dated 04.12.2018 at Annexure-L would reveal that at time of consideration of petition for removal of obstruction, DC had mentioned amount to be paid to respondent i.e. Rs.1,03,500/- for area falling under 'A' Type Tower and Rs.2,30,000/- for corridor area. There is no dispute

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

about petitioners having paid Rs.8,69,352/- to respondent at time of drawing of transmission lines under consideration. Though, learned counsel for respondent contended that respondent would still be entitled for compensation towards crop damage, during cross-examination it is elicited that RoRs produced did not contain entries about crops grown. However, same is attributed to negligence of revenue authorities. But, without being substantiated. Only RoR at Annexure-G contains entry about cultivation of onion in 5 Acres in Sy.no.542/2 of DS Halli.

¶52

While passing impugned order, above factors have

¶53

not been taken note of nor appreciated, rendering findings recorded unsustainable. Therefore, point for consideration is answered in negative.

¶54

Consequently, following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. Writ petition is allowed ; impugned order dated 09.02.2021 passed by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.278/2019 is setaside.

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:35174 WP No. 6217 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

ii. Matter is remitted back to District Court for fresh consideration.

¶61

iii. Since both parties are represented herein, they are ready to appear before District Court on 03.11.2025, without awaiting fresh notice and co-operate for early conclusion.

¶62

iv. Parties would be at liberty to lead additional evidence, if they choose so.

¶63

v. Learned District Judge to expedite disposal.

¶64

vi. Until then, amount stated to have been deposited, is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit for period of Six months and renewed for like terms. Same would be subject to final outcome of determination.

¶65

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶66

GRD

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

The Executive Engineer (Ele), v. Sri. K . T Girish @ Girish .K.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Ele), v. Sri. K . T Girish @ Girish .K.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohan Prasad K C Vs the Assistant Executive Entginer (Ele)

Sri. D. M. Gopal Gowda Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Sri MD Saleem Vs the Secretary

Sri Krishne Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mudduraj Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs G Nagarajappa