Karnataka High Court
Marappa vs Executive Engineer on 4 September, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
WP No. 352 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
MARAPPA,
S/O DASANNA @ DASAPPA,
AGED 65 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O KUNIKERE VILLAGE,
BEERENAHALLY POST,
HIRIYUR TALUK 572 143,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
Digitally signed by KAMAGARI DIVISION,
GEETHAKUMARI KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD
PARLATTAYA S OLD ZP OFFICE,
Location: High TUMKURU - 572 101.
Court of Karnataka
2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BRUHAT KAMAGARI DIVISION,
KPTCL, KOTHITHOPU ROAD,
OLD ZP OFFICE,
TUMKURU - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE )
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
WP No. 352 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC.NO.77/2015 DATED 01.04.2022
VIDE ANNEXURE-G.
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 01.04.2022 passed by Special
2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chithradurga, in Civil
Misc.no.77/2015, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted, petitioner is owner of 6 Acres 4 guntas of land in
Sy.no.169/1 of Kunikere village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga,
utilized by respondents in year 2014 for drawing 220 KV High
Tension Electricity Transmission Line with installation of one
Tower.
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
HC-KAR
3. It was submitted, petitioner had grown arecanut
and coconut apart from onion in lands which sustained
damages. It was submitted, on 24.01.2015, petitioner was paid
Rs.50,000/- towards damage to onion crop; each arecanut tree
aged 6 years was valued at Rs.3,726.17/- and Rs.21,05,286/-
paid for 565 trees; each arecanut aged 4 years valued at
Rs.421.36/- and Rs.14,747/- paid for 35 trees; each coconut
tree aged 8 years valued at Rs.16,654.33/- and Rs.1,49,889/-
paid for 9 trees i.e., total of Rs.23,19,925/-. It was submitted,
respondents had not considered duration for which trees would
have yielded income nor considered nature of land as garden
land. Fact that land suffered diminution of value was also lost
sight of. Therefore, petitioner filed application under Section
16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short), for
assessment of damages.
4. On appearance, respondents opposed application.
Thereafter, learned District Judge framed issues and petitioner
led evidence examining herself as PW.1 and marking copy of
Record of Rights of land as Ex.P1, Borewell certificate as Ex.P2,
Sub-Registrar Guidance Value ('SRGV' for short) Extract for
year 2014-2015 as Ex.P3, Crop yield certificate as Ex.P.4 and
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
HC-KAR
Price list of coconut as Ex.P5. Respondents did not lead
evidence, but got marked copy of order passed by Deputy
Commissioner and memo of particulars as Exhibits R1 and R2
with consent.
5. On consideration, impugned order was passed. It
was firstly submitted, value of arecanut considered by learned
District Judge at Rs.150/- per kg was on lower side. Likewise,
value paid for 35 arecanut trees aged 4 years, at Rs.421.36/-
each was grossly on lower side. It was further submitted, no
compensation was awarded for area falling under tower which
had occupied an extent of 10 X 10 metres. On said grounds,
sought for allowing writ petition and determining just damages.
6. On other hand, Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for
respondents opposed petition. It was submitted while passing
impugned order, learned District Judge had taken note of each
of factors and determined just compensation. It was pointed
out, even if there were any scope for enhancement, fact that
cultivation cost was not deducted would clearly offset same and
therefore, sought dismissal of petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
HC-KAR
7. Heard learned counsel, perused writ petition and
material on record.
8. From above, point that would arise for consideration
is:
"Whether petitioner is entitled for enhancement
of compensation, as sought for?"
9. At outset, utilization of petitioner's land for drawing
of overhead transmission line by respondents, petitioner
sustaining damages and being entitled for compensation for
felling of 565 arecanut trees more than 6 years of age, 35
arecanut trees about 4 years of age; 9 coconut trees about 8
years of age, are not in dispute. Main ground for seeking
enhancement is value of arecanut considered by learned
District Judge is on lower side and no compensation assessed
for area falling under tower.
10. Careful perusal of cross-examination of PW.1 by
respondents would reveal that respondents themselves
suggested that value of 1 Quintal of arecanut was Rs.20,000/-.
Same would be Rs.200/- per kg. Respondents have also
suggested that each arecanut tree would yield 1-2 kgs of
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
HC-KAR
arecanut per year. While assessing compensation, learned
District Judge has rightly taken higher yield for consideration,
but erred in taking value of arecanut per kg at Rs.150/- instead
of Rs.200/-. At same time, he erred in not deducting any
cultivation cost. Same has to be taken notionally at 30%.
11. Re-computation of compensation would be as
follows:
565 trees X 2 kgs X Rs.200/- per kg, capitalized for 10
years = Rs.22,60,000/-.
12. On deduction of 30% towards cultivation cost,
amount would be Rs.15,82,000/-. Same would be less than
amount awarded by learned District Judge. Even, in case of
coconut trees also, there is no deduction of cultivation cost.
Therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for enhancement of
compensation, insofar as loss due to felling of fruit bearing
trees.
13. Apart from above, learned District Judge has also
awarded compensation towards diminution of value of land at
30% of SRGV. Division Bench of this Court, in
W.A.no.1375/2025 disposed of on 21.07.2025, has held that
NC: 2025:KHC:34898
HC-KAR
diminution of value due to drawing of overhead transmission
line has to be calculated at 30%. Even contention that no
compensation is awarded for area under Tower would be
unsustainable as entire area falling under transmission lines as
well as Tower as mentioned in Ex.R2 is taken for assessment of
damages. Thus, compensation awarded by learned District
Judge would not call for enhancement as it is not lower than
amount for which petitioner would be entitled. Point for
consideration is answered in negative.
In view of above, writ petition is devoid of merits and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD/AV
