M/S Powergrid Corporation of India Limited Vs L. Venkatappa @ Venkatappa

M/S POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED HOUSE NO.5, THIRUMALA NILAYA, NEAR SWAMYVIVEKANAND COLLEGE, VIJAYANAGARA LAYOUT, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561292. REP BY ITS GENERAL DIRECTOR, MR. SHREE HARISH KUMAR NAIR, S/O MR. R RAMAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶10

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INIDA LIMITED, 400/200 K.V. STATION, BEERENAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 599. REP. BY GENERAL DIRECTOR MR. HARISH KUMAR NAIR, S/O MR. R RAMAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

[BY MISS ANANYA GUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRADYUMNA L.NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

L. VENKATAPPA @ VENKATAPPA S/O LATE LINGANNA @ LINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS, NARAYANPURA, HIRIYURTALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 2^ND NOVEMBER 2021 PASSED BY 2^ND ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN REVIEW PETITION NO 28 OF 2019, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE CMP ORDER DATED 13^TH JULY 2021 PASSED BY 2^ND ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CIVIL MISC.NO.787 OF 2019, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Challenging order dated 13.07.2021 passed by Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in C.Misc.no.787/2019 as per Annexure-B and order dated 02.11.2022 passed by said Court in Review Petition no.28/2021 as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Ms.Ananya Gudihal, learned counsel appearing for Sri Pradyumna L Narasimha, advocate for petitioner submitted that respondent had filed an application under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short), claiming that he was owner of 5 Acres 39 guntas out of total of 30 acres 26 guntas in Sy.no.204/1 of Khandenahalli village, Dharmapura Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, over which petitioners herein had drawn 400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Pavagada to Hiriyur, occupying an extent of 2 Acres 10 guntas with tower installation. And at time of drawing of line and installation of tower, petitioners had caused damage to crops and installation of tower had led to diminution of value of his land for which compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- paid was inadequate.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

On appearance, petitioners had filed objections and

¶33

opposed petition. Thereafter, learned District Judge had framed following points for consideration:

¶34

"(1) Whether petitioner is entitle for damages / compensation under the head of decrease of value of the land in view of the installation of power line/tower?

¶35

(2) If petitioner is entitle for compensation, what is the quantum of compensation?

¶36

(3) What order?"

¶37

In trial, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and

¶38

got marked copy of Record of Right ( 'RoR' ) of his land and Sub-Registrar Guidance Value extract ( 'SRGV' ) as Exhibits P1 and P2. In rebuttal, petitioner examined its official as RW.1 and got marked copies of Gazette Notifications, Guidelines for payment of compensation, copy of order of approval for laying of transmission line, Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, Crop price-list, joint measurement report and payment particulars as Exhibits R1 to R8.

¶39

On consideration, learned District Judge answered point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

point no.3 by allowing petition in part and directing petitioners to pay additional compensation of Rs.85,000/- with 8% interest

¶43

per annum. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners had filed Review Petition no.28/2021. Without proper consideration, same was dismissed on 02.11.2022. Aggrieved, this writ petition was filed.

¶44

Learned counsel, at outset submitted that during proceedings before Deputy Commissioner filed under Section 16 (1) of Act, Deputy Commissioner had suggested compensation package of Rs.2,25,000/- for 'D.A.' Type tower, which was paid and apart from same, damages to crops and trees were ordered to be evaluated by Horticulture Department. It was submitted, petitioners had thus paid sum of Rs.4,50,000/- at Rs.2 Lakhs per acre for 2 Acres 10 guntas towards area falling under corridor area and Rs.84,000/towards damages to Chilli crop grown in an area of 1200 sq.fts. i.e., in all a sum of Rs.7,59,000/- as per Ex.R8. It was further submitted, receipt of said amount was admitted by respondent in cross-examination. Despite referring to same in impugned order, learned District Judge considered market value of land as per SRGV at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre and applied 30%

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

towards diminished value of property to arrive at a sum of Rs.74,250/- towards diminution of value of land to an extent of

¶49

2 Acres 10 guntas. However, District Court ignored fact that petitioners have in fact paid much more than said amount. Urging above grounds, review petition was filed. However, without consideration, same was dismissed. Therefore, impugned orders passed by learned District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous Petition as well as in Review Petition were unsustainable and sought for quashing of same. It was also submitted, in WP no.9324/2023 disposed of on 09.12.2024, this Court had on similar grounds and circumstances, quashed order passed by District Court and dismissed application filed by respondent. Learned counsel sought rely on same.

¶50

Respondent has chosen to remain unrepresented.

¶51

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶52

records.

¶53

From above, petitioners' grievance against orders impugned is that despite petitioner having paid compensation not only towards damage caused to crop but also towards diminution of value of land as well as additional compensation

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

for tower installation and despite specific contention having

¶58

been taken and records being placed to substantiate same, learned District Judge had erred in awarding enhancement which would amount to double compensation.

¶59

Perusal of petition filed by respondent under Section 16 (3) of Act indicates admission of payment of Rs.2,25,000/- only claiming it to be towards damage caused to crops and stating that there was no compensation awarded towards diminishing value of land. In para 5 of objections filed by petitioners, specific assertion about payment of Rs.7,59,000/- into petitioner’s account by NEFT, along with particulars, namely that Rs.2,25,000/- paid was towards Tower area, Rs.4,50,000/- was towards diminution of value of land of 2 Acres 10 guntas, taking market value at Rs.5,000/- per gunta. (which would be Rs.2 Lakhs per Acre) and Rs.84,000/was for damages caused to Chilli crops in 1,200 sq.fts area is made. During evidence, respondent merely produced RoR and SRGV for years 2019-20, which was for subsequent year after laying of lines. In any case, even said extracts would indicate market value of land at Rs.1,10,000/-.

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Petitioners herein, on other hand, apart from producing Gazette Notifications, approvals and Authorizations also produced a joint survey report about total area utilized by petitioners for laying of transmission lines along with sketches and also details of amount paid to respondent at Ex.R8. In cross examination, PW.1 admitted about petitioners remitting a sum of Rs.7,59,000/- into his account. Though there is denial of suggestions about he having received compensation without demur, there is no cross-examination of RW.1, who specifically deposed by giving break-up of heads of compensation. It is also interesting to note that while market value of land suggested by Deputy Commissioner was Rs.2 Lakhs and petitioners had calculated compensation accordingly, learned District Judge considered tower amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as market value and calculated compensation. Since compensation towards diminution of value of land was already paid and received, there was no scope or occasion for District Court for determine compensation under this head once again. Thus, order passed/award passed by District Judge would amount to double compensation and liable to be quashed. This Court in similar

¶63

9 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:37566 WP No. 9159 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

circumstances has quashed similar award passed, in WP no.9324/2023.

¶67

In view of same, petitioners succeed. Consequently, writ petition is allowed , impugned order dated 13.07.2021 passed by Special Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in C.Misc.no.787/2019 as per Annexure-B and order dated 02.11.2022 passed by said Court in Review Petition no.28/2021 as per Annexure-A, are quashed .

¶68

Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to petitioner.

¶69

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶70

AV

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

M/S Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. L. Venkatappa @ Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Powergrid Corporation of India Limited v. L. Venkatappa @ Venkatappa

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

M/S Spoonability LLP Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Vishweshwaraiah Vs Executive Engineer (Ele.) (v)

Iqbal Abdul Kader Vs State of Karnataka

Sri P N Sridhar Vs the Secretary

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs a S Jayanth

M/S. S.R.S. Enterprises Vs the Director of