ORDER : The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.12.2013 made in Misc. No.68/2011 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga awarding a compensation of Rs.58,462/with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till date of payment. 2. The rank of the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The respondent, who is land owner filed Misc. Petition under the provisions of Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 claiming total compensation of Rs.7,70,000/with 12% interest for diminution value of land and loss of the crops and trees in respect to the property utilized by the petitioners contending that he is the owner of the agricultural irrigated land bearing Sy.No.134/P1 measuring 5 acres 32 guntas situated at Sajjanakere village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk, out of which an extent of 46.77 guntas of land was utilized by the respondents/present petitioners in order to transmit electricity line for drawing 440 K.V. high tension double circuit electricity line including corridor land both left and right side from the center point for drawing electricity line. The respondents have paid only Rs.4,260/, meager amount of compensation and it is stated that the land of the petitioner is black fertile agricultural land and he has grown groundnut crops. After deducting expenses, he was getting Rs.1,50,000/income from 3 acres and in view of drawing up of the line, he has lost groundnut crops for the relevant year to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/and respondents has destroyed the trees worth about Rs.20,000/. The value of the land in the village per acre is more than Rs. 2 lakhs and land is potential for non-agriculture and he has also dug bore well. In view of the drawing up of the line 440 K.V. by the respondents, he is not in a position to utilize the land to make it as garden land. Therefore, in all he claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/towards loss of crops, Rs. 6,00,000/towards the diminishing value of land utilized by the respondents, Rs.20,000/towards the value of trees destroyed, in total Rs.7,70,000/with 12% interest. 4. Therefore, in all he claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/towards loss of crops, Rs. 6,00,000/towards the diminishing value of land utilized by the respondents, Rs.20,000/towards the value of trees destroyed, in total Rs.7,70,000/with 12% interest. 4. The respondents/petitioners filed objections, denied the averments made in para –2 of the petition and contended that the compensation amount paid to the landlord was finally settled and respondents issued cheque bearing No.640716 for a sum of Rs.4,260/towards the loss of crops and other damages caused to the land and matter is fully settled. It was further contended that the petitioner claimed the compensation for the land in the petition. There is no provision under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation in respect of land and further contended that the respondents have erected the electricity line of 440 K.W. double circuit line in the land of the petitioner in the year 2008-09 and respondent paid compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner’s land is dry land and he is yielding all the crops after erection of line also. There is no loss or damage caused to the petitioner and hence sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. To substantiate the case of the respondent-landlord who is petitioner before the District Judge, examined as PW1 and marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 4. The present petitioners/respondents before the District Judge have not led any evidence, but a memo of calculation as per Ex.R.1 was marked with consent. 6. The learned District Judge based on aforesaid pleadings, framed two following points for consideration. i. Whether the petitioners in Misc. 68/11 are entitled for compensation under the head loss of diminution of value of their lands, when electricity lines were drawn? ii. If petitioners are entitled for compensation, what is the amount to be paid towards compensation? And ultimately held that the petitioner partly proved that he is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of diminishing value of the land and crops and accordingly the present petitioners/respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.58,462/with 6% interest per annum from the date of the petition till payment. Hence, the writ petition is filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri. Hence, the writ petition is filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Sri. Ashok Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge taking the aerial space at 46.77 guntas, in erroneous but actually it is only 14.8 guntas and taking the market value at Rs.1,00,000/per acre has deducted 50% to amount towards diminution value of the market value without any basis. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Judge cannot be sustained. He further contended that the mere drawing up of 440 K.V. double circuit high tension line, there would not be a loss for the respondent – landlord and he was not prevented from growing any crops. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge granting compensation of Rs.58,462/with 6% interest cannot be sustained. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and another Vs. Doddakka reported in [ILR 2015 Kar. 677] 9. Per contra, Sri. Vijay Kumar T. for Sri. R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the source of water for the property in question i.e., bore well and petitioners are raising groundnut crops. The learned District Judge considering the entire material placed on record, proceeded to pass the impugned order and awarded compensation, which is just and proper. Hence, no interference is called for under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the present petitioners were respondents before the learned District Judge have utilized the land of the respondent to an extent of 46.77 guntas for drawing of 440 K.V. double circuit high tension electricity line. Therefore, the respondent was forced to file the petition under the provision of Sec.16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 claiming compensation. It was specific case of the respondent that he used to grow groundnut (shenga) crops and the source of water to the said crops was bore well and he has lost the crops valued at Rs.1,50,000/and the value of the land is more than Rs.2,00,000/. It was specific case of the respondent that he used to grow groundnut (shenga) crops and the source of water to the said crops was bore well and he has lost the crops valued at Rs.1,50,000/and the value of the land is more than Rs.2,00,000/. In all claimed Rs.7,70,000/including cost of the trees destroyed for the purpose of drawing electricity line. 11. In the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, he has specifically stated that “In my land there is one bore well and my land market value is Rs.2 lakh per acre. The respondents have drawn 440 K.V. double circuit high tension wire on aerial area of 3 acres land and have cut down one neem tree”. He has sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/in respect of destroyed the groundnut (shenga) crops in his land and he has sustained loss of Rs. 6 lakhs in respect of 3 acres land towards diminution value of land and he has sustained loss of Rs.20,000/towards destroying one neem trees. Though the present petitioners have crossexamined P.W.1 they have not adduced any contra evidence to disprove the claim made by the land lord-respondent. 12. The material documents Ex.P.1RTC extract for the year 2011-12, produced by the respondent – landlord clearly depicts the source of water as bore well, crops grown as “Groundnut”. Ex.P.3 relied upon by the learned counsel is the information got by the respondent – landlord under Right to Information Act depicts that he is the owner of the Sy.No.134/P1, wire width in meters 14.8 and length in meters – 91. Ex.P.4 is the valuation certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga in respect of Sajjanakere village. Even assuming the land utilized in the year 2008-09, the value of the dry land is Rs. 35,000/per acre, wet land is Rs.75,000/and garden land is Rs.1,25,000/; For the year 2009-10, the value of the dry land is Rs. 50,000/per acre, wet land is Rs.1,00,000/and garden land is Rs.1,70,000/. The material documents both oral and documentary evidence produced by the respondent – landlord clearly depicts that the source of water to the crops grown by him was from the bore well and the same is evidenced as per indicated at Ex.P.1. The RTC extract produced by the landlord clearly indicates that at column No.8 – the source of water is bore well and column No.8 shows as kushki shenga. 13. The RTC extract produced by the landlord clearly indicates that at column No.8 – the source of water is bore well and column No.8 shows as kushki shenga. 13. The learned District Judge has taken the value of the land as Rs.1,00,000/per acre and therefore 1 gunta value was Rs.2,500/. Since the ownership of the land remained with the petitioner and therefore 50% of total market value is taken into consideration as diminishing to that extent is calculated at 2500x46.77 guntas i.e., 58,462/. It is the specific case of the P.W.1 that he has raised groundnut crops and in view of the drawing of the line, he has lost the crops worth of Rs.1,50,000/. Though in the crossexamination, the respondents-present petitioners suggested that he has not grown such crops, the fact remains as per Ex.P.1 for the year 2011-12 that he has grown groundnut (shenga) crop. The source of water is bore well. Therefore, the learned District Judge ought to have taken as garden land. Unfortunately, the respondent land lord has not filed any writ petition for enhancement. It seems he was happy with compensation awarded and he might have utilizing the land for agriculture purpose, even after drawing the line. Therefore, he has thought it fit not to file petition for enhancement. 14. The fact remains in the present case that it is the specific case of the PW1 that he lost the value of the crops to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/. The diminishing value of land utilized is Rs.6,00,000/and value of the destroyed neem tree is Rs.20,000/, in all Rs.7,70,000/. Except production of Ex.R.1memorandum of particulars, no contra evidence is adduced by the petitioners. The learned District Judge has taken into consideration the diminution value including the crops, though he has taken as Rs.1 lakh as market value, deducted 50% for diminishing value and loss of the crops and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned District Judge ought to have taken diminution value as 30% cannot be accepted. 15. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is a case, where the compensation for the loss of crop and diminution of the land, both were taken into consideration. The facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts of the present case and has no application to the case on hand. 15. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is a case, where the compensation for the loss of crop and diminution of the land, both were taken into consideration. The facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts of the present case and has no application to the case on hand. Admittedly, in the present case, though there is no specific words used in the impugned order, the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the market value of the land utilized as Rs.1,00,000/per acre and has awarded compensation towards diminishing land value, ignoring the loss of the crops. He was under the impression that the compensation of Rs.58,462/, 50% i.e., half of the market value should be diminishing of value and loss of crops. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 16. It is well settled that while considering the provisions of Electricity Act and Telegraph Act for determination of compensation of loss of diminishing value on account of drawing electricity line over the property has to be held that the situsof the land distance between the high voltage electricity line laid over the extent of the land thereon and also fact whether the high voltage line passes over the track of the land or through the middle of the land and other relevant facts are to be considered. The owner of the land, furthermore in a given situation may loose his specific right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimant not only lost the agricultural land but he has also been deprived of the income that was available to him as a result of the drawing 440 K.V. double circuit high tension line and it is not the case of the present petitioners before the District Judge that even after drawing of the lines, the landlord has utilizing the lands for raising crops. No contra evidence is produced to disprove the claim of the claimant/ respondent –landlord. 17. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the District Judge is just and proper and in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act. No contra evidence is produced to disprove the claim of the claimant/ respondent –landlord. 17. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the District Judge is just and proper and in accordance with the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere under the Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.