IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.1470 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, JCR CIRCLE, 3^RD CROSS (EAST)

JCR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY AGED 52 YEARS.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KPTCL, JCR CIRCLE, 3^RD CROSS (EAST)

JCR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA-577501 REPRESENTED BY MANJUNATHA SWAMY AGED 50 YEARS. Digitally signed by …PETITIONERS MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SMT RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA AND:

B.H. NAGARAJAREDDY @ NAGARAJAREDDY S/O NARAYANAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA AGED 57 YEARS, R/O DOODASIDDAVVANAHALLI, D.S. HALLY POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577524.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2024 IN CIVIL MISC.NO.259/2020 PASSED BY THE Special, II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners assail the order dated 02.09.2024 in Civil Miscellaneous 259 of 2020 passed by the Special, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short ‘the trial Court’). By the impugned order, the trial Court partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘the Act’ for short) and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of ` 1,49,212/- along with 8% interest per annum from the date of drawing transmission line till the date of payment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erred in awarding an additional sum of ` 1,49,212/- with interest when the petitioners had already paid a total amount of ` 2,28,750/- towards full and final settlement. It is contended that the respondent accepted the said compensation without any protest, and therefore, the award of further compensation is unwarranted. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, had already quantified and included the component of diminution of land value and crop damage in the compensation determined at ` 2,28,750/-, and thus the trial Court erred in adding an additional sum.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner clearly indicates that the compensation awarded pertained to loss of crops/standing trees and damages caused during the erection of the transmission line, and that the diminution of land value was not considered.

4. In support of their respective contentions, both sides relied on various coordinate Bench decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer and Another vs Katappa, W.P. 5267 of 2021, Similarly, in the cases of Executive Engineer and Another vs H.M Shivanandaiah, W.P. 5284 of 2021, and Executive Engineer and Another vs Jayamma, W.P. 5275 of 2021, (all disposed of on 09.09.2022), to contend that under identical circumstances, when the Deputy Commissioner had already taken diminution value of the land into account, the trial Court could not award additional compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decisions of the two co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Executive Engineer and Another vs Doddakka (Doddakka), W.P. 39979/2013 disposed of on 06.08.2014 and the batch matters in W.P.No. 14288/2020 and connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 19.04.2023, where this Court held that diminution land value must be taken at 30% when it has not been quantified by the Deputy Commissioner. To the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Deputy Commissio