Karnataka High Court
M/S Powergrid Corporation Of India ... vs L. Venkatappa @ Venkatappa on 18 September, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
WP No. 9159 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 9159 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S POWERGRID CORPORATION
OF INDIA LIMITED
HOUSE NO.5,
THIRUMALA NILAYA,
NEAR SWAMYVIVEKANAND COLLEGE,
VIJAYANAGARA LAYOUT,
PAVAGADA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561292.
REP BY ITS GENERAL DIRECTOR,
MR. SHREE HARISH KUMAR NAIR,
S/O MR. R RAMAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. POWER GRID CORPORATION
OF INIDA LIMITED,
400/200 K.V. STATION,
BEERENAHALLI,
Digitally signed by HIRIYUR TALUK,
GEETHAKUMARI
PARLATTAYA S CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
Location: High KARNATAKA - 577 599.
Court of REP. BY GENERAL DIRECTOR
Karnataka MR. HARISH KUMAR NAIR,
S/O MR. R RAMAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
...PETITIONERS
[BY MISS ANANYA GUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRADYUMNA L.NARASIMHA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
WP No. 9159 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
L. VENKATAPPA @ VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE LINGANNA @ LINGAPPA
AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS,
NARAYANPURA, HIRIYURTALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 599.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT DATED 2ND NOVEMBER 2021 PASSED BY 2ND ADDL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN REVIEW
PETITION NO 28 OF 2019, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SETTING ASIDE THE
CMP ORDER DATED 13TH JULY 2021 PASSED BY 2ND ADDL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, IN CIVIL MISC.NO.787 OF
2019, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT 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:37566
WP No. 9159 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 13.07.2021 passed by Special
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in
C.Misc.no.787/2019 as per Annexure-B and order dated
02.11.2022 passed by said Court in Review Petition no.28/2021
as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.
2. Ms.Ananya Gudihal, learned counsel appearing for
Sri Pradyumna L Narasimha, advocate for petitioner submitted
that respondent had filed an application under Section 16 (3) of
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short), claiming that he
was owner of 5 Acres 39 guntas out of total of 30 acres 26
guntas in Sy.no.204/1 of Khandenahalli village, Dharmapura
Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, over which petitioners herein had drawn
400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Pavagada to
Hiriyur, occupying an extent of 2 Acres 10 guntas with tower
installation. And at time of drawing of line and installation of
tower, petitioners had caused damage to crops and installation
of tower had led to diminution of value of his land for which
compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- paid was inadequate.
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
HC-KAR
3. On appearance, petitioners had filed objections and
opposed petition. Thereafter, learned District Judge had framed
following points for consideration:
"(1) Whether petitioner is entitle for damages /
compensation under the head of decrease of value of
the land in view of the installation of power
line/tower?
(2) If petitioner is entitle for compensation, what is
the quantum of compensation?
(3) What order?"
4. In trial, respondent examined himself as PW.1 and
got marked copy of Record of Right ('RoR') of his land and
Sub-Registrar Guidance Value extract ('SRGV') as Exhibits P1
and P2. In rebuttal, petitioner examined its official as RW.1 and
got marked copies of Gazette Notifications, Guidelines for
payment of compensation, copy of order of approval for laying
of transmission line, Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, Crop
price-list, joint measurement report and payment particulars as
Exhibits R1 to R8.
5. On consideration, learned District Judge answered
point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
HC-KAR
point no.3 by allowing petition in part and directing petitioners
to pay additional compensation of Rs.85,000/- with 8% interest
per annum. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners had filed Review
Petition no.28/2021. Without proper consideration, same was
dismissed on 02.11.2022. Aggrieved, this writ petition was
filed.
6. Learned counsel, at outset submitted that during
proceedings before Deputy Commissioner filed under Section
16 (1) of Act, Deputy Commissioner had suggested
compensation package of Rs.2,25,000/- for 'D.A.' Type tower,
which was paid and apart from same, damages to crops and
trees were ordered to be evaluated by Horticulture Department.
It was submitted, petitioners had thus paid sum of
Rs.4,50,000/- at Rs.2 Lakhs per acre for 2 Acres 10 guntas
towards area falling under corridor area and Rs.84,000/-
towards damages to Chilli crop grown in an area of 1200 sq.fts.
i.e., in all a sum of Rs.7,59,000/- as per Ex.R8. It was further
submitted, receipt of said amount was admitted by respondent
in cross-examination. Despite referring to same in impugned
order, learned District Judge considered market value of land
as per SRGV at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre and applied 30%
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
HC-KAR
towards diminished value of property to arrive at a sum of
Rs.74,250/- towards diminution of value of land to an extent of
2 Acres 10 guntas. However, District Court ignored fact that
petitioners have in fact paid much more than said amount.
Urging above grounds, review petition was filed. However,
without consideration, same was dismissed. Therefore,
impugned orders passed by learned District Judge in Civil
Miscellaneous Petition as well as in Review Petition were
unsustainable and sought for quashing of same. It was also
submitted, in WP no.9324/2023 disposed of on 09.12.2024,
this Court had on similar grounds and circumstances, quashed
order passed by District Court and dismissed application filed
by respondent. Learned counsel sought rely on same.
7. Respondent has chosen to remain unrepresented.
8. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
records.
9. From above, petitioners' grievance against orders
impugned is that despite petitioner having paid compensation
not only towards damage caused to crop but also towards
diminution of value of land as well as additional compensation
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
HC-KAR
for tower installation and despite specific contention having
been taken and records being placed to substantiate same,
learned District Judge had erred in awarding enhancement
which would amount to double compensation.
10. Perusal of petition filed by respondent under
Section 16 (3) of Act indicates admission of payment of
Rs.2,25,000/- only claiming it to be towards damage caused to
crops and stating that there was no compensation awarded
towards diminishing value of land. In para 5 of objections filed
by petitioners, specific assertion about payment of
Rs.7,59,000/- into petitioner's account by NEFT, along with
particulars, namely that Rs.2,25,000/- paid was towards Tower
area, Rs.4,50,000/- was towards diminution of value of land of
2 Acres 10 guntas, taking market value at Rs.5,000/- per
gunta. (which would be Rs.2 Lakhs per Acre) and Rs.84,000/-
was for damages caused to Chilli crops in 1,200 sq.fts area is
made. During evidence, respondent merely produced RoR and
SRGV for years 2019-20, which was for subsequent year after
laying of lines. In any case, even said extracts would indicate
market value of land at Rs.1,10,000/-.
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
HC-KAR
11. Petitioners herein, on other hand, apart from
producing Gazette Notifications, approvals and Authorizations
also produced a joint survey report about total area utilized by
petitioners for laying of transmission lines along with sketches
and also details of amount paid to respondent at Ex.R8. In
cross examination, PW.1 admitted about petitioners remitting a
sum of Rs.7,59,000/- into his account. Though there is denial
of suggestions about he having received compensation without
demur, there is no cross-examination of RW.1, who specifically
deposed by giving break-up of heads of compensation. It is also
interesting to note that while market value of land suggested
by Deputy Commissioner was Rs.2 Lakhs and petitioners had
calculated compensation accordingly, learned District Judge
considered tower amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as market value and
calculated compensation. Since compensation towards
diminution of value of land was already paid and received,
there was no scope or occasion for District Court for determine
compensation under this head once again. Thus, order
passed/award passed by District Judge would amount to double
compensation and liable to be quashed. This Court in similar
NC: 2025:KHC:37566
HC-KAR
circumstances has quashed similar award passed, in WP
no.9324/2023.
12. In view of same, petitioners succeed. Consequently,
writ petition is allowed, impugned order dated 13.07.2021
passed by Special Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chitradurga in C.Misc.no.787/2019 as per Annexure-B and
order dated 02.11.2022 passed by said Court in Review Petition
no.28/2021 as per Annexure-A, are quashed.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to petitioner.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
