Compensation awarded for the same damage under different heads is impermissible, and prior payments must be factored into any further compensation claims.

ORDER :

1. 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.

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 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% 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