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.10984 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

RAJAPPA @ RAJAPPA P.N. @ RAJAPPA N.B.

S/O LATE NAGAPPA,

AGE 57 YEARS,

AGRICULTURIST,

R/O KATANAHATTI VILLAGE,

BEERENAHALLI POST, HIRIYUR TALK,

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 143. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR

M/S. RENEW POWER LIMITED,

COMMERCIAL BLOCK-I, ZINE-6,

GOLF COURSE ROAD,

DLF CITY PHASE-V, GURGAON,

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M HARYANA-122 009.

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

KARNATAKA

RENEW POWER LIMITED,

QUEENS PARADISE,

#16 GROUND FLOOR,

CURVE ROAD, TASKER TOWN,

NEAR INDIAN EXPRESS CIRCLE,

BENGALURU-560 051. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA IN CIVIL MISC NO.74/2022 DATED 03.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

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 03.03.2025 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (‘trial Court’ for short) in Civil Miscellaneous No.74/2022, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘Act’ for short) seeking enhancement compensation for diminishing in land value on account of erection of the high tension electricity transmission line came to be dismissed.

Brief facts

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and cultivator of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.129/8, measuring 6 acres 23.08 guntas situated at Beerenahalli Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. The respondents erected a 400/220 KV high tension transmission line and tower over a portion of the petitioner's land, covering about 1 acre 20 guntas resulting in destruction of standing crops, removal of perennial trees and permanent restriction on agricultural use of the corridor area. It is stated that though an amount of ₹12,00,000/- was paid pursuant to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner contended that the said compensation was confined only to the crop loss, trees and incidental charges and no compensation was ever assessed or paid towards diminishing in the market value of the land.

3. On this premise, Civil Miscellaneous No.74/2022 was filed seeking determination of compensation for diminishing in land value, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order giving rise to the present writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner's order and payment particulars do not disclose any assessment of compensation towards diminishing in land value. The Court below proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the compensation paid covered all heads without framing a clear issue or recording a finding specifically on the diminishing value.

6. Learned counsel places reliance on the payment memo-Ex-R2 stating that it is misplaced as it only reflects the compensation for corridor, crops, trees and bore well and not for payment loss of land value. The dismissal of the claim petition without proper appreciation of evidence amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested under Section 16(3) of the Act.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies the judgment and order of the trial Court and submits that the same does not warrant any interference.

8. According to the learned counsel, the compensation of ₹12,00,000/- was paid and received by the petitioner without protest and the compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner included all permissible heads and granting further compensations woul