Karnataka High Court
Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Sri. Doddathimmappa on 21 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
WA No. 1375 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1375 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
BRUHATH KAMAGARI VIBHAGA
KPTCL 66 KV LINE, 3RD CROSS
J.C.R. EXTENSION
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI DODDATHIMMAPPA
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 2. SRI GURAPPA
AMBIKA H B S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
Location: PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
High Court
of Karnataka
3. SRI GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
4. SRI. THIMMAPPA
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
5. SRI THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
WA No. 1375 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. SRI ANAND
S/O LATE GUNDAPPA
PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
TALAKU HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17.11.2023 PASSED IN W.P. No.20013/2014 BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the application-I.A No.1/2024,
the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
3. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.20013/2014 [NC:2023:KHC:41168], whereby
the learned Single Judge had directed that the compensation at
the rate of 50% of the market value be paid in respect of
certain lands on account of the appellant constructing 400 KV
high tension electric wires over the said land. The appellant had
paid a sum of ₹4,758/- in respect of the diminished value of
subject land [28.47 guntas in RS 140/2 of Kodihalli Village,
Taluk Hobli Challakere, Chitradurga District].
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
award of 50% of the market value of the land is excessive. He
submits that although the value of the subject land may have
diminished, it cannot be construed that it has diminished to the
extent of 50%. He also points out that the land in question has
been used by the respondents for growing sunflower seeds and
other crops and construction of high tension electric lines,
would not impede the respondents/land owners from cultivating
the land in question for such crops.
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
5. It is the respondents' case that they intended to dig a
borewell and grow coconut trees and arecanut trees. The
construction of the electric lines now precludes them from
growing such trees.
6. The question of the quantum of compensation to be paid
for diminution in value of land in such circumstances, was
considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of
matters; The Chief Engineer, Electricity Transmission Zone and
others v. Gangappa [Writ Appeal No.100366/2022 being the
lead appeal].
7. We consider it apposite to set out the following extract
from the said decision:
"10. There is no dispute with regard to
utilization of the respondents' lands in all the writ
appeals for erection of 400 KV high tension
transmission line and for erection of electrical
towers. The trial Court while awarding the
enhanced compensation has taken diminutive
value of the lands utilized at 50%. It cannot be
disputed that erection of high voltage electrical
line through/over any agricultural land by the
appellants/KPTCL in exercise of powers conferred
on them under Section 10 of the Act, 1885 would
result definitely in reduction of value of the
property. It is to be noted that diminutive value
is to be assessed taking note of potentiality of
the lands, its utilization, fertility of the land and
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
commercial value of the land etc. What is the
percentage of diminutive value is to be
determined by the Courts. While determining
the diminutive value, the Court shall take note of
the crops grown in the land, whether it is
commercial or agricultural. The value of the land
would also be a relevant factor for determining
diminutive value. The amount of compensation
is required to be determined keeping in view the
purpose and object of the statute. There cannot
be any hard and fast rule in this behalf.
Undisputedly, the claimants/respondents would
not be in a position to utilize the land as they
were utilizing the lands earlier, because of
erection of electric transmission line. No doubt
the claimants/respondents would not be in a
position to grow trees underneath the high
tension transmission line, but they are not
deprived of the lands from utilizing for any other
agricultural activity. Admittedly, possession of
the lands are not taken by the appellants and
title remains with the respondents/land owners.
Respondents/land owners are not prohibited
from utilizing the lands for any other purpose
beneath the electric transmission line. It is the
case of the respondents that they were growing
chilly, groundnut and other commercial crops.
Erection of electric line would not come in the
way of growing chilly, groundnut and other crops
beneath the electric lines. But there may be little
reduction in yield. To compensate such reduction
in yield and also land value, diminutive value is
to be assessed.
11. Learned Single Judge of this Court in
WP No.39979/2013, dated 6.8.2014 at
paragraph-24 has held as follows:
24. As regards the diminution value of
the land falling within the corridor, the
learned District Judge having
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
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 pone, 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 is also affected. Therefore, all
these facts 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 facts 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.
12. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA
Nos.2883-2884/2014, dated 15.03.2019
upholding the decision of the learned Single
Judge made in WP No.39979/2013 referred to
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
above, confirmed the diminutive value of the
land utilized at 30%. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs.
Livisha & Others while considering the
compensation payable under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 for utilization of the land for
the purpose of erection of high tension electric
line, at paragraph-9 of the judgment has held as
follows:
9. Both telegraph lines and electrical
lines are required to be drawn over the
agricultural lands and/or other properties
belonging to the third parties. In drawing
such lines, the entire land cannot be
acquired but the effect thereof would be
diminution of value of the property over
which such line is drawn. The Telegraph
Act, 1885 provides for the manner in
which the amount of compensation is to
be computed therefor. Section 10 of the
Act empowers the authority to place and
maintain a telegraph line under, over,
along or across or posts in or upon any
immovable property. Section 11
empowers the officers to enter on
property in order to repair or remove
telegraph lines or posts. Section 12
empowers the authority to grant
permission for laying down such lines to
a local authority in terms of Clauses (c)
and (d) of the proviso to Section 10 of
the Act subject to reasonable conditions
as it may think fit.....
10. The situs of the land, the distance
between the high voltage electricity line
laid thereover, the extent of the line
thereon as also the fact as to whether
the high voltage line passes over a small
tract of land or through the middle of the
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
land and other similar relevant factors in
our opinion would be determinative. The
value of the land would also be a
relevant factor. The owner of the land
furthermore, in a given situation may
lose his substantive right to use the
property for the purpose for which the
same was meant to be used.
13. In the above decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, Kerala State Electricity Board was in
appeal challenging the enhancement of
compensation and fixing the rate of diminutive
value at 50% instead of 40%. The Hon'ble Apex
Court with an observation at paragraph-10,
relevant factors for determination of diminutive
value, remanded the matter to the High Court
for fresh consideration on merit.
14. It cannot be disputed that though the
respondents/land owners would not be in a
position to grow trees beneath the transmission
lines and electrical towers, they are not totally
deprived of utilizing their lands for carrying out
their agricultural operations and they can grow
other crops, which may not be affected by the
high voltage transmission line. The method
adopted by the trial Court in arriving at
diminutive value of the land at 50% is unjust and
unreasonable. Admittedly, appellants/authorities
have paid compensation to the respondents/land
owners for erection of transmission line and for
erection of electrical towers in the lands of the
respondents. Thus, in the facts and
circumstances, we are of the considered view
that there is no material on record to assess the
diminutive value of the lands utilized at more
than 30%."
NC: 2025:KHC:27222-DB
HC-KAR
8. Undisputedly, the controversy involved in the present
appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision.
Accordingly, we direct that the compensation for the diminution
in value of the subject land be quantified and paid at the rate of
30% of the market value instead of 50% of the market value as
directed by the learned Single Judge.
9. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
10. Pending application is also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
AHB
