The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri T. T… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri T. T… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part: impugned order dated 29.10.2022 in C.Misc.no.312/2020 set aside and matter remitted to the District Court for fresh determination on similar terms in accordance with law, keeping in mind observations in WP no.6932/2023; both parties directed to appear before the trial Court without awaiting fresh notice on 03.11.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned District Judge could assess market value of land, while determining compensation towards diminution of value of land, based on the Agreement of sale.

Court's answer

The sole contention urged by the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WP no.6932/2023.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru, in C.Misc.no.312/2020 at Annexure-A is set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted back to the District Court for fresh determination on similar terms, in accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations made in WP no.6932/2023; since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the trial Court without awaiting fresh notice on 03.11.2025.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited officials (Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical) challenged, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 29.10.2022 of the VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru in C.Misc.No.312/2020, whereby compensation towards diminution of value of land was determined by assessing market value based on an Agreement of sale. The sole ground urged was that such assessment had been held unsustainable by this Court in WP No.6932/2023, disposed of on 12.09.2025. Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the submission, noting only that the said decision was an order of remand. Holding the sole contention squarely covered by the decision in WP No.6932/2023, the Court allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh determination on similar terms, in accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations in WP No.6932/2023; both parties, being represented, were directed to appear before the trial Court without awaiting fresh notice on 03.11.2025.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:36588 WP No. 8818 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

WRIT PETITION NO. 8818 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), NO.5, SUB-DIVISION, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED., (K.P.T.CL) KOTITOPU, TUMAKURU.

ASSISTANT EXECUITVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) NO.5, SUB-DIVISION, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION IV K.P.T.CL., KOTITHOPU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by [BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE (PH)] GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S

Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

SRI T. T. LAKSHMAIAH, S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, TAGGIHALLI, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 211.

…RESPONDENT

[BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR D.K., ADVOCATE (PH)]

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:36588 WP No. 8818 of 2023

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 29.10.2022 PASSED IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 312/2020 BY THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL ORDER

Challenging order dated 29.10.2022 passed by VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru, in C.Misc.no.312/2020 as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

Heard Smt.S Shubha, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri DK Shivakumar, learned counsel for respondent.

Sole ground urged by petitioners is, learned District Judge assessed market value of land while determining compensation towards diminution of value of land based on Agreement of sale. It is submitted, same was held unsustainable by this Court in WP no.6932/2023 disposed of on 12.09.2025, and therefore, seeks for allowing writ petition.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36588 WP No. 8818 of 2023

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for respondent would not dispute submission, except stating that decision relied upon by petitioners was order of remand.

In view of above, as sole contention urged by petitioner is squarely covered by decision of this Court in WP no.6932/2023, writ petition is allowed in part , impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed by VII Addl. District Judge, Tumakuru, in C.Misc.no.312/2020 at Annexure-A is set aside. Matter remitted back to District Court for fresh determination on similar terms, in accordance with law and keeping in mind observations made in WP no.6932/2023. Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before trial Court without awaiting fresh notice on 03.11.2025.

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

AV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33