Karnataka High Court
Doddathimmappa vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 21 August, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
WP No. 4171 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 4171 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. DODDATHIMMAPPA,
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
AGE 76 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
2. GURAPPA,
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
3. GOVINDAPPA,
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS,
4. THIMMAPPA,
Digitally signed by
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
GEETHAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
PARLATTAYA S
Location: High 5. THIPPESWAMY,
Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS,
6. ANAND,
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
TALAKU HOBLI,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
WP No. 4171 of 2022
HC-KAR
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA,
KPTCL, 400 KV,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR N G., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN MISC.72/2013 DATED
6.2.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND HENCE THE COMPENSATION
TO RS 5,00,000/ACRE WITH 12 PERCENT INTEREST PER
ANNUM.
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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
WP No. 4171 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 06.02.2014 passed by Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Misc.no.72/2013, this
writ petition is filed.
2. Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted, petitioners were owners of 4 Acres of land
in Sy.no.140/2 situated at Kodihalli village, Talaku Hobli,
Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, over which respondent
had proposed to draw 400 KV Double Circuit High Tension
electricity transmission line with one tower installation. It was
submitted, a sum of Rs.4758/- was paid to petitioner as
compensation for damages caused to trees and crops standing
on land and as well as for diminished value of land. Not
satisfied with same, petitioner had filed Misc.no.72/2013 before
Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga under Section
16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It was submitted,
petitioner had claimed compensation not only towards
diminution value of land due to drawing of High Tension wire
and installation of tower, but also damage caused to arecanut,
coconut and teak plantation on land.
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
HC-KAR
3. On appearance, respondents opposed petition.
Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed following
points:
i) Whether the petitioners in Misc.no.72/2013 are
entitled for compensation under the head, loss of
diminution of value of their lands, when electricity
lines were drawn?
ii) If petitioners are entitled for compensation, what
is the amount to be paid towards compensation?
iii) To what order?
4. In support of his case, petitioner no.4 examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3, while
respondents got marked memo of calculation with consent as
Ex.R.1.
5. On consideration, learned District Judge determined
diminution value of land at Rs.64,057/- and ordered payment
of Rs.6,000/- towards installation of tower and granted total
compensation of Rs.70,057/-. Aggrieved thereby, present writ
petition was filed. It was submitted insofar as diminution of
value of land, Division Bench of this Court in W.A.no.1375/2024
disposed of 21.07.2025 had determined it to be at 30% as
against 50% of guidance value of land. But, insofar as damages
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
HC-KAR
caused due to felling of tress, petitioner was entitled for
compensation.
6. It was submitted, District Magistrate at time of
granting permission as per order at Annexures-B and C fixed
compensation due to loss of trees. It was submitted there was
no finding by learned District Judge on this aspect while passing
impugned order. Hence, prayed for allowing petition.
7. Sri Vijayakumar NG learned counsel for respondent,
on other hand, opposed petition. It was submitted order passed
by learned District Judge impugned herein assailed by
respondents in WP.no.20013/2014, was dismissed. However,
WA no.1375/2024 filed against said order came to be allowed
in presence of petitioners on 21.07.2025 reducing
compensation. Apart from above, it was submitted order
impugned herein was passed on 06.02.2014, whereas petition
was filed in year 2021 without explanation for delay and laches.
8. It was also submitted pendency of said writ petition
was not informed either at time of disposal of
WP.no.20013/2014 or at time of writ appeal. Therefore,
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
HC-KAR
petitioner would not be entitled for any relief and sought for
dismissal of petition.
9. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
10. From above, it is seen petitioner is aggrieved by
order passed by learned District Judge under Section 16(3) of
Act. However, petition is filed 9 years after passing of order. On
perusal of order dated 07.11.2023 passed in
WP.no.20013/2014, it is seen petitioner herein had entered
appearance. Despite same, present writ petition is filed
belatedly without any iota of explanation for delay. That apart,
pendency of writ petition is not brought to notice either to
learned Single Judge or Division Bench. It is seen that grounds
urged by respondents while assailing order impugned herein
was on all counts and respondents succeeded in securing
reduction.
11. In view of this Court having spelt out on legality of
order, there would be no scope for entertaining or reexamining
same. Thus, not only on ground of delay and laches, but also
NC: 2025:KHC:32663
HC-KAR
on ground that it would not be open for re-examination in view
of decision of this Court in W.A.no.1375/2024, this writ petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
PSG
