IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 24757 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

R H THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE HALAPPA,

AGE 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED),

R/O PALAVVANAHALLY VILLAGE,

AIMANGALA HOBLI, HIRIYUR TALUK,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 572 143.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by

1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

MAHALAKSHMI B M

Location: HIGH MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA KPTCL, SUB DIVISION-1,

JCR BADAVANE 3^RD CROSS,

(EAST), CHITRADURGA-577 501.

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,

KPTCL, SUB DIVISION-1,

JCR BADAVANE, 3^RD CROSS,

(EAST), CHITRADURGA 577501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANIRUDH A KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC NO.81/2022 DTD

22.09.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

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 petitioner has called in question the judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 (Annexure-J) passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Miscellaneous No.81/2022, whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the damages caused due to laying of 66KV high tension electricity transmission line over his agricultural land was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner is an agriculturalist and owner of agricultural lands in Survey No.8/P1 measuring 6 acres 15 guntas and Survey No.8/P7 measuring 7 guntas situated at Palavvanahally Village, Aimangala Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. The respondents, for the purpose of transmission of electricity, laid 66KV high tension electricity line and erected a tower in the petitioner's land. According to the petitioner, the laying of transmission line resulted in destruction of standing crops, damage to borewell, restriction on use of land beneath the corridor area and diminution in the value of the land.

3. Compensation was assessed and paid by the respondents on basis of an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous No.81/2022 seeking enhancement. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the said petition holding that the compensation has already been paid as per the Deputy Commissioner's order and that no case for enhancement was made.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the respondents assert that the compensation has been paid in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, no independent or recent assessment of diminution in the value of the land in fact has been made. It is submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not disclose any methodology, percentage or basis for quantifying the diminution of the land value arising of permanent restrictions imposed on the petitioner's right to use the land beneath the high tension transmission line and corridor. Learned counsel further contends that without a specific determination of loss in market value caused by such restrictions, cannot be equated with assessment of diminution of the land value as required in law.

5. It is submitted that the trial Court has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that diminution of the land value stood assessed without examining whether such assessment was actually carried out by the competent authority. On this ground alone it is contented that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and matter requires remand for fresh consideration after properly determining compensation towards diminution of the land value by relying the decision of this Co