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

SMT. S. SUNAND @ SUNANDAMMA, W/O. LATE SRI K.N. SHARANAPPA, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KYADIGERE VILLAGE, KYADIGERE POST, D.S. HALLI RATH, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-J DATED 17/04/2021 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC. NO.289/2019 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) seek to challenge the order dated 17.04.2021 passed by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Court' for short) in Civil Misc.No.289/2019 whereby the Court awarded diminution value compensation in favour of the respondent.

¶26

Respondent (Land owner) filed Civil Misc. No.289/2019 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 her land bearing Re.Sy.No.525/3 measuring 11 acres 09 guntas situated at D.S. Halli Village, Chitradurga Taluk and District. The ground urged by the respondent in the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

petition was that the KPTCL erected towers over about 3 guntas of her land, destroyed standing crops and trees, reduced the fertility and market value of the land and sought `99,00,000/- for diminishing of the land value.

¶30

The petitioners (KPTCL) filed objections

¶31

contending that they have already paid a sum of `6,47,717/- 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.

¶32

The Trial Court partly allowed the miscellaneous petition and awarded additional compensation of `2,72,500/- with 6% interest.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-

¶34

KPTCL and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- claimant.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Petitioners’ contention:

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶39

the full compensation has already been paid towards the diminution in land value as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for a sum of `6,47,717/-. 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.

¶40

Respondent's contention:

¶41

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent contends that the respondent is the owner and cultivator of land bearing Re.Sy.No.525/3 measuring 11 acres 09, wherein various crops were being grown. The KPTCL

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

destroyed crops over an extent of 3 guntas while erecting 220 KV towers, resulting in substantial loss, reduced fertility and decrease in the market value of the 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 contentions urged and perused the material on record more particularly, the Deputy Commissioner's order.

¶47

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 `6,47,717/- 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

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

at the relevant time. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court

¶52

in the case of Executive Engineer and Another vs Doddakka¹ (Doddakka) has held at paragraph Nos.24 and 25 as under:

¶53

“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

¶54

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

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

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 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.

¶59

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/)”

¶60

In the absence of determination of the diminution value by the Deputy Commissioner, the

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

statutory right of the land owner under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act to seek adjudication on ‘ sufficient compensation remains unaffected’ . The jurisdiction of the 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 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.

¶64

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

¶65

of 220 KV towers and transmission lines. There is no

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

discussion, calculation, quantification of the reduction in market value of the land, loss of utility due to the transmission corridor, permanent user restrictions, tower footprint, or right of way related diminution.

¶69

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.

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46335 WP No. 8966 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

The sum of `6,47,717/- as awarded by the

¶73

Deputy Commissioner was not towards the diminution in the value of the land but, purely towards crop damage and

¶74

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:

¶75

ORDER

¶76