Karnataka High Court
M T Rajakumar @ Rajakumar vs The Executive Engineer Kptcl on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
WP No. 1936 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 1936 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
M.T. RAJAKUMAR @ RAJAKUMAR
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY
REP. BY GPA HOLDER,
M.T. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O LATE THIPPESWAMY,
AGED 44 YEARS,
R/O RAMAJJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 527,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Digitally signed by KPTCL MAJOR WORKS,
GEETHAKUMARI SUB DIVISION-1,
PARLATTAYA S 3RD CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENSION,
Location: High CHITRADURGA -577 501.
Court of Karnataka
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KPTCL MAJOR WORKS,
SUB DIVISION-1, 3RD CROSS,
J.C.R. EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA -577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE (PH)]
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
WP No. 1936 of 2022
HC-KAR
AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF SPECIAL 2ND ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC
NO.477/2019 DATED 20.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION IS 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 20.12.2021 passed by II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil
Misc.no.477/2019, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel submitted that
petitioner is owner of extent of 2 Acres 20 guntas in
Sy.no.106/3 of Ramajjanahalli Village, Madadakere Hobli,
Hosadurga Taluk, Chithradurga District, wherein he was
growing chilly crop. He had also planted 75 mango trees, 35
tamarind trees, 3 coconut trees and other trees. It was
submitted during year 2017-18, respondents drew 66 KV High
Tension electricity transmission line over petitioner's land. At
that time, they cut trees and destroyed crop. Though petitioner
was paid compensation of Rs.1,09,555/-, same was not
commensurate with damages sustained. Therefore, petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
HC-KAR
raised dispute before District Judge under Section 16(3) of
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short).
3. In petition, he had clearly stated that an extent of 1
Acre 20 guntas of his land fell under High Tension wires and
that respondents had cut 75 mango trees, 35 tamarind trees, 1
bela tree, 3 jaali trees, 2 tuggali trees and 3 coconut trees.
And payment of Rs.1,09,555/- as damages was not on any
scientific assessment. It was further stated that nature of
petitioner's land was bagayat (garden) land and it had Borewell
facility. Therefore, he was growing horticulture crops and
earning more than Rs.2 Lakhs per annum, which income he had
lost. He had further asserted that value of land was more than
Rs.10 Lakhs per acre and due to drawing of High Tension wires,
it's value has diminished. Therefore, he had sought for
compensation towards damages not only towards loss of
income from trees but also diminished value of land.
4. Though respondents filed objections as per
Annexure-B, there was no specific denial about particulars of
trees stated to be grown in petitioner's land as averred in para
3 of petition and market value of petitioner's land at Rs.10
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
HC-KAR
Lakhs as asserted in para 7 of petition. It was submitted,
Annexure-C/Ex.P2 clearly showed that petitioner's land had
Mango and Arecanut saplings and value of Arecanut growing
land as per Annexure-D/Ex.P3 was Rs.5 Lakhs. Therefore,
assessment of compensation by learned District Judge
considering nature of petitioner's land as dry land and adopting
lower value and considering only loss of 3 coconut trees was
contrary to material on record and sought enhancement.
5. On other hand, Smt.S. Shubha, learned counsel for
respondents opposed writ petition. It was submitted, while
drawing of 66 KV High Tension transmission line over
petitioner's land was not disputed, it was asserted that
respondents had compensated petitioner for damages
sustained to crops and trees. Even before learned District
Judge, petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for
enhancement by placing relevant material on record. It was
submitted, Record of Rights ('RoR') at Ex.P2 was for year 2018-
19 while extract of Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV' for
short) marked as Ex.P3 was for year 2020-21 and not for
relevant period i.e., 2017-18. It was further submitted, learned
District Judge has specifically recorded admission by petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
HC-KAR
examined as PW.1, about nature of his land being dry and
failure to produce any material to substantiate market value of
his land at Rs.10 Lakhs. Therefore, impugned order does not
suffer from any material irregularities and illegality.
6. Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition and
records.
7. While drawing up of High Tension electricity
transmission line over land belonging to petitioner during 2017-
18 is not in dispute, order passed by learned District Judge
under Section 16(3) of Act determining quantum of damages
sustained is assailed on specific grounds. Insofar as petitioner's
claim about number of trees cut from petitioner's land, though
petitioner stated particulars in para 3 of petition as 75 mango
trees, 35 tamarind trees, 1 bela tree, 3 jaali trees, 2 tuggali
trees and 3 coconut trees, same is not corroborated by any
material. Indeed RoR at Ex.P2 in Column no.12(9) would
contain entries of Arecanut saplings in 1 acre and Mango
saplings in 1 acre 20 guntas. Said RoR is for year 2018-19,
which would be one year after drawing of transmission line.
Admittedly, number of saplings and trees is not stated. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
HC-KAR
trite that burden would be on claimant to establish damages
sustained by leading cogent evidence. Except self serving oral
testimony, which is denied by respondents in their objections
filed and elicited in cross-examination of petitioner, there is no
specific material to substantiate petitioner's claim. Therefore,
said contention would have to be rejected.
8. Insofar as nature of land, petitioner's claim is based
on contents of Exs.P2 and P3. While Ex.P2, as noted above, is
for subsequent year and entries in Column no.12(8) mention it
as 'dry land' and source of water as 'rain', Ex.P3 is SRGV for
year 2020-21. There is no specific explanation by petitioner for
failure to produce SRGV for relevant period i.e., 2017-18 nor
any assertion that value was same as in Ex.P3. In any case,
learned District Judge has adopted value mentioned for dry
land in Ex.P3 while assessing compensation. Therefore, said
ground would also not yield any benefit to petitioner.
9. Lastly, insofar as petitioner's assertion about
market value of petitioner's land to be Rs.10 Lakhs as asserted
in para 7 of petition, there is specific denial of value at Rs.10
Lakhs. Moreover, during cross-examination, petitioner admitted
NC: 2025:KHC:30094
HC-KAR
that he failed to produce any documents to substantiate said
claim. Consequently, none of petitioner's contentions as against
order impugned would hold. Perusal of impugned order would
indicate reference made to Ex.R1 - memo of particulars of
trees, awarding Rs.35,058/- for 3 coconut trees to petitioner
which would be at Rs.11,686/- per tree. Insofar as diminished
value of land, learned District Judge has considered it at 30%
of SRGV, which would be in terms of decision of Division Bench
of this Court in W.P.no.100366/2022 and connected matters
decided on 20.06.2023. Consequently, no interference would be
warranted, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
