Karnataka High Court
Gowramma vs The Executive Engineer on 10 September, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
WP No. 43748 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 43748 OF 2019 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
GOWRAMMA,
W/O C M SHEKHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/O CHIKKABENNURU VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TQ & DIST-577501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
OFFICERS OF KPTCL,
1ST FLOOR,
Digitally signed by OLD BESCOM OFFICE BUILDING,
GEETHAKUMARI HADADI ROAD,
PARLATTAYA S DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
OFFICERS OF KPTCL,
1ST FLOOR,
OLD BESCOM OFFICE BUILDING,
HADADI ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
WP No. 43748 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
MIS NO.117/2016 MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD AS
PER ANNEXURE - H AND J PASSED BY THE SPECIAL 2ND ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHITRADURGA IN
MIS.NO.117/2016 ON 3.11.2017.
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
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Special II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Civil
Misc.no.117/2016, this petition is filed.
2. Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that petitioner was owner of 5 Acres 20
guntas of land in Sy.no.25/P3 of Jattalahalli village,
Bharamasagara Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, over which
respondents had drawn 66 KV High Tension Power Line with
installation of one Tower in petitioner's land. Due to same,
petitioner had not only suffered damage to crops, but land had
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
HC-KAR
also suffered diminution of value. At time of drawing line,
petitioner was paid sum of Rs.33,768/-, which was grossly
inadequate. Therefore, he filed application seeking
enhancement of compensation under Section 16(3) of Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, ('Act', for short) before learned District
Judge.
3. On appearance, respondents had contested same
by filing objections. Learned District Judge had framed issues
and recorded evidence. Petitioner examined herself as PW.1
and got marked copies of Record of Rights and Sub-Registrar
Guidance Value Extract ('SRGV' for short) as Exs.P1 and P2
respectively. Respondents did not enter witness-box, but got
marked copy of memo of particulars as Ex.R1 with consent.
4. On consideration, learned District Judge had
allowed petition in part and enhanced compensation by
Rs.47,000/- with interest at 8% per annum thereon. Not
satisfied with compensation, present petition was filed.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that at
time of drawing line, amount paid by respondents was only
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
HC-KAR
towards damages sustained to crops and not towards
diminution of value of land. It was submitted that as per
Annexure-F - Dishaank App Screenshot, land bearing Sy.no.25
of Jattalahalli village was adjacent to National Highway.
6. It was submitted that in case of adjacent land
bearing Sy.no.24/5 of Jattalahalli village, which was also used
for drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines, owner of land
therein had filed Misc.no.114/2015 before Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chitradurga. Said petition was allowed on
08.08.2016 by enhancing compensation taking market value of
land adjacent to National Highway at Rs.10,00,000/-. It was
submitted, since petitioner's land was similarly situated, said
valuation was required to be applied to petitioner's land also. It
was submitted said order had attained finality. On said grounds
sought for allowing writ petition.
7. On other hand, Smt.Shubha S., learned counsel for
respondents opposed petition. It was submitted, petition would
be untenable on ground that there was no fresh or additional
usage of land for drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines and
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
HC-KAR
it was a case for upgradation of lines. Therefore, petitioner
would not be entitled for compensation.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
material on record.
9. From above, utilization of petitioner's land for
drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines by respondents,
petitioner sustaining damages and filing application for
determination of same before District Court under Section
16(3) of Act is not in dispute. Though learned counsel for
respondents raised preliminary contention that due to
upgradation of transmission lines, petitioner would not be
entitled for any compensation. Said contention was apparently
not urged before District Court and in any case, respondents
have not questioned award. Therefore, same requires to be
rejected. Only basis for seeking enhancement is petitioner's
contention that petitioner's land was adjacent to National
Highway.
10. Perusal of objections filed by respondents before
District Court at Annexure-B would indicate that there is no
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
HC-KAR
clear denial of same. Though petitioner may not have
substantiated her assertion by producing relevant material
before District Court, she relied upon photographs at
Annexures-E, E1 and Screenshot of Dishaank App indicates
Sy.no.25 as being adjacent to National Highway. It is also seen
that Sy.no.24 is adjacent to Sy.no.25. Petitioner is placing
reliance on similar award passed in Misc.no.114/2015 at
Annexure-K.
11. Perusal of same would reveal that in case of
adjacent land i.e. Sy.no.24/5 of Jattalahalli village, learned
District Court had taken market value of land at Rs.10,00,000/-
as it was adjacent to National Highway. Since petitioner's land
is similarly situated, said value has to be extended to
petitioner's case also. There is no dispute about extent of land
utilized for drawing up transmission lines and laying of power
i.e. at 32.02 guntas. Division bench of this Court in
W.A.no.1375/2024 disposed of on 21.07.2025 has held
diminution of value of land due to Overhead Transmission Lines
would be at 30%. Apart from determining compensation
towards diminution value of land, learned District Court had
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
HC-KAR
awarded Rs.10,000/- additionally towards installation of tower
in petitioner's land.
12. Thus, re-computation of compensation would be as
follows:
Rs.10,00,000/- per acre X 30% of diminution of
value of land = Rs.3,00,000/- per acre which
would be Rs.7,500/- per gunta.
For 32.02 guntas it would be Rs.2,40,150/- +
Rs.10,000/- towards installation of tower. Totally,
Rs.2,50,150/-.
13. In view of above, order dated 03.11.2017 passed
by Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.117/2016, requires to be modified.
Petitioner would be entitled for enhancement of compensation.
However, taking note of fact that writ petition is filed after
delay of two years without any acceptable explanation, it is
found appropriate to deny interest for period of two years.
Hence, following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed in part.
Compensation determined by Special II
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
NC: 2025:KHC:35686
HC-KAR
Chitradurga, in Civil Misc.no.117/2016 is
modified.
ii. Petitioner is held entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,50,150/- with
interest at 8% per annum from date of
petition excluding two years being delay
in approaching this Court.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
