1. Order dated 01.06.2013 passed in Misc.No.98/2011 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, is challenged by the petitioners -authorities of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, 'the KPTCL').

2. Facts leading to the cose, stated in nutshell are that respondent is the owner of 5 acres 1 gunta of land bearing RS No. 156/1 situated at Babbur Village of Hiriyur Taluk in Chitradurga District. In order to transmit electricity, KPTCL has drawn 66/KV High Tension circuit line over the land of the respondent. During the course of drawing the circuit line, the authorities of the petitioner Corporation have cut coconut trees standing in the said land. They have assessed compensation for the loss caused to the respondent farmer and have paid the same. The respondent -land owner being aggrieved by the amount of damages/compensation paid approached the learned District Judge, Chitradurga by filing a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short, 'the Act') claiming compensation. She has contended before the learned District Judge that she was entitled for the value of fruit bearing trees based on the annual yield and also for payment of diminution in the market value of the land having regard to her disability to put her land for use for which she could have used them, but for the drawal of electrical lines.

3. Learned District Judge recorded evidence of the parties. The respondent - landowner has examined herself as P.W.I and has produced the RTC of the land, photographs showing the destruction of standing trees, Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Crop Yielding Certificate issued by the APMC. Petitioner/Corporation has not examined any witness. They have not adduced any evidence, but have produced a memo containing particulars with regard to the extent of land used that is to say the corridor area and the amount paid as compensation.

4. Learned District Judge framed the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head, loss of diminution of value of 28.47 guntas ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head, loss sustained due to cutting up of 14 coconut trees?

3. If petitioner is entitled for compensation, what is the amount to be paid towards compensation?

4. To what order?

5. On consideration of the evidence on record and after referring to the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act and also placing reliance on some of the judgments on the point, the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the landowner was entitled for payment of compensation keeping in mind the corridor area to be computed based on the restriction imposed regarding usage of the land to the extent of 18 meters (9 meters on either side of the electrical line) calculated from the center of the electrical lines. Having regard to the fact that the landowner would be deprived of opportunity to grow tall trees like coconut, arecanut, teak, etc.. though he was entitled to grow other crops being the owner of the land even after the electrical line v/as drawn, the learned District Judge has held that 50% of the market value of the land towards the diminution value of the agricultural land had to be paid as compensation. In coming to this conclusion, the learned District Judge has referred to the judgment in ARYA ANTHERJANAM VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM -AIR 1996 KERALA 309. Thus, the learned District Judge has proceeded to quantify the compensation in the following manner.

6. The total extent of land involved has been determined as 23.47 guntas. The market value of the land per acre has been taken at Rs.2,00,000/- based on the Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Hiriyur pertaining to land where coconut trees were grown. The market value of the land per gunta has been arrived at Rs.5,000/- as per Ex.P5.

For 28.47 guntas of land, 50% of the