Karnataka High Court
D. B. Gavisiddappa vs Karnataka Power Transmission ... on 30 August, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
WP No. 16532 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 16532 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
D. B. GAVISIDDAPPA,
S/O. HOTTEBASANNA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HOSADADAGURU,
DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
Location: High CORPORATION LTD.,
Court of Karnataka
BENGALURU,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KPTCL CORPORATE OFFICE,
CAUVERY BAVANA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
KPTCL,
R. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING,
P.B. ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
WP No. 16532 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER (ELECT)
MAJOR WORKS,
SUB-DIVISION-1,
KPTCL OFFICE,
KPTCL,
3RD CROSS (EAST),
JCR EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS PER ANNEXURES-G AND H PASSED
BY THE 1ST ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT
CHITRADURGA IN MISC.NO.838/2019 DATED 18.3.2021 AND
ENHANCING THE DAMAGES AND ETC.,
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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
WP No. 16532 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order passed by District Judge determining
compensation under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 ('Act' for short) payable for damages sustained by land-
owner/petitioner due to installation of 400 KV Power
Line/Towers over petitioner's land, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde Nagaraj, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted, petitioner was owner of land measuring 4
Acres 11 guntas, in Re.Sy.no.31/1 of Dadaguru village,
Molakalmur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It was submitted during
year 2017, respondents installed 400 KV Power Line/Tower
over petitioners' land causing damage/destruction of crops but
also acute diminution of value of land. It was submitted, at
time of installation, respondents/authorities paid compensation
only towards damage to crops etc. Therefore, they filed petition
for determination of compensation of Rs.21 Lakhs with interest.
3. Petition was registered as Civil Misc.no.838/2019
and notices were issued.
4. On appearance, respondent-authorities opposed
petitioner's claim.
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
HC-KAR
5. Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed
following points for consideration:
i) Whether petitioner is entitled for
damages/compensation under the head of
decrease of value of the land in view of
installation of power line?
ii) If petitioner is entitled for compensation,
what is the quantum of compensation?
iii) What order?
6. In trial, petitioner deposed himself as PW.1 and
got marked Exhibits P.1 to P4. Respondents got marked one
document as Exhibit-R.1 with consent.
7. On consideration, point no.1 was answered in
affirmative, points no.2 and 3 by determining Rs.13,520/- as
compensation towards diminution of value of land, with interest
at 6% per annum.
8. Aggrieved by said determination as being
inadequate, petitioner is before this Court.
9. It was firstly submitted, due to installation,
petitioner was permanently prevented from cultivating land
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
HC-KAR
utilized for installation, which was akin to acquisition of land
under provisions of The Right for Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act, 2013, ('RFCTLARR Act', for short). Therefore,
learned District Judge erred in taking Sub-Registrar Guidance
Value ('SRGV', for short) instead of market value of land while
determining diminished value of land.
10. It was secondly submitted, fact that not only land
directly falling under Towers and Lines, but also surrounding
area suffered from restricted user and therefore required to be
considered while determining compensation.
11. It was thirdly submitted, fact that restriction of
user was perennial was also not considered.
12. It was lastly submitted, Record of Rights produced
along with valuation certificate would establish that petitioner's
land was bagayat land and therefore, assessment by taking
SRGV for dry land was erroneous. It was further submitted,
Petitioner's land was abutting National Highway and
compensation was determined without noting NA potentiality.
On above grounds, impugned award called for interference.
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
HC-KAR
13. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents
no.1 to 3 opposed petition. It was submitted, installation of
Towers/Line by respondent authorities was in accordance with
law after payment of damages to crops/trees/constructions as
applicable, which was admitted.
14. It was submitted, learned District Judge had duly
appreciated each ground of claim while assessing compensation
and there was no scope for interference.
15. It was submitted, acquisition of land under
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and under RFCTLARR
Act, differed from utilization of land for installation under
provisions of Act. It was submitted, there was no deprivation of
title or possession. Even after installation, owners could
cultivate lands. Restriction of user was partial. Therefore,
provisions for assessment of compensation under Land
Acquisition enactments would not apply.
16. It was submitted, Division Bench of this Court had
held diminished value of land would be at 30% of SRGV. And as
determination of compensation was not only taking area
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
HC-KAR
directly coming under installations, but also area under
restricted user, there was no scope for interference.
17. Insofar as claim of petitioner about land being
bagayat land, it was submitted while calculating compensation,
learned District Judge had adopted value of Tari or Wet land,
which was only Rs.1,000/- lower than SRGV for bagayat land
and therefore, difference in total compensation would be
negligible. Under above circumstances, there was no scope for
interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India and
sought dismissal of writ petition.
18. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
19. In view of above, only point that would arise for
consideration is:
"Whether determination of compensation
towards diminished value of land by District
Judge under Section 16 (3) of Act, calls for
interference?"
20. Facts and circumstances of present case as well
as contentions urged by respective learned counsel have
received consideration while dismissing W.P.no.5894/2022.
Said findings would squarely apply to present case also.
NC: 2025:KHC:33881
HC-KAR
21. Insofar as land abutting National Highway, it is
seen, no material was produced to establish that petitioner's
land abutting National Highway. Hence, for above reasons,
point for consideration is answered in negative. Consequently,
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
