SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442426

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K S HEMALEKHA
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER – Appellant
Versus
SUSEELAMMA – Respondent
WP 5063/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.5063 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

IN W.P. No.5063/2023

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

KPTCL, BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBAGHA,

SUB-DIVISION 1, JCR EXTENSION,

3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

MAJOR WORKS, KPTCL,

BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBAGA,

SUB-DIVISION 1, JCR EXTENSION,

3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M 1. SUSEELAMMA

Location: HIGH W/O RUDRAPPA,

COURT OF

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

KARNATAKA

R/AT NERENAHALLI VILLAGE,

J.N. KOTE POST,

CHITRADURGA TALUK-577532.

2. ANANDAPPA @ K. ANANDAPPA

S/O KENCHAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

R/AT NERENAHALLI VILLAGE,

J.K. KOTE POST,

CHITRADURGA TALUK-577532. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2022 IN CIVIL MISC NO.275/2019 PASSED BY 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, CHITRADURGA (ANNEXURE-A) AND DISMISS CIVIL MISC NO.275/2019.

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-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) seek to challenge the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Court' for short) in Civil Misc.No.275/2019 whereby the Court awarded diminution value compensation in favour of the respondents.

2. Respondents (Land owners) filed Civil Misc.

No.275/2019 under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Telegraph Act’ for short), claiming additional compensation for alleged loss caused due to the installation of 220 KV transmission line / tower over their lands bearing Sy. No.538/2b measuring 8 acres 2 guntas and Sy. No.539/2a2 measuring 4 acres 4 guntas situated at D.S. Halli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. The ground urged by the respondents in the petition was that the KPTCL erected towers over about 3 acres of their land, destroyed standing crops and trees, reduced the fertility and market value of the land and sought `96,00,000/-

with interest for diminishing of the land value.

3. The petitioners (KPTCL) filed objections contending that they have already paid a sum of `3,06,326/- as full and final compensation for the diminution land value as per the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 04.12.2018, and the respondents accepted the compensation without protest, that no crops existed on the land at the time of drawing the line in 2018.

4. The Trial Court partly allowed the miscellaneous petition and awarded additional compensation of `1,99,763/- with 8% interest.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-

KPTCL and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- claimants.

Petitioners’ contention:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the full compensation has already been paid towards the diminution in land value as fixed by the Deputy Commissioner for a sum of `3,06,326/-. The compensation has been voluntarily received by the respondents without any objections and the respondents never challenged Ex.R1. Hence, reopening the compensation is impermissible. It is submitted that once the diminution land value was assessed and paid, awarding additional compensation amount towards diminution would amount to duplication. The impugned order has no finding on the Deputy Commissioner's assessment and this amounts to the perversity, which warrants interference by this Court.

Respondents’ contention:

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents are the owners and cultivator of lands bearing Sy. No.538/2b measuring 8 acres 2 guntas and Sy. No.539/2a2 measuring 4 acres 4 guntas, wherein various crops were being grown. The KPTCL destroyed crops ov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top