ORDER : Petitioners being the land owners which they had bought vide Registered Sale Deed dated 19.03.1994 are grieving before this Court that no compensation is paid by the respondent-KPTCL for using a portion of the land for running the 66 KV Power Lines in their land even when the law mandates the payment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 06.01.2018, a copy where of is at Annexure-H which reads as under: OTHER LANGUAGE 3. After service of notice, respondent Nos.1 & 2 are represented by their Panel Counsel Sri. H.V.Devaraju and respondents 3 & 4 are represented by the learned AGA Miss. Niloufer Akbar; both resist the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers reprieve needs to be granted to the petitioner as under and for the following reasons: a) admittedly 66 KV power lines are running in petitioners land bearing Survey No.10/1A1; the report of the committee for payment of compensation for using land for the purpose of transmission lines at paragraphs 1.3 & 1.4 which reads as under: “1.3 The maximum width of RoW corridor is calculated on the basis of tower design span, and wind speed, maximum sag of conductor and its swing plus other requirement of electric safety. The requirement of ROW for different voltage types under standard conditions is as follows: ROW width for different voltage line* Transmission Voltage Width of Right of Way (in Meters) 66 kV 18 110 kV 22 132 kV 27 220 kV 35 400 kV S/C 46 400 kV D/C 46 +/500 kV HVDC 52 765 kV S/C (with delta configuration) 64 765 kV D/C 67 +800 kV D/C 69 1200 kV 89 1.4 The Telegraph Act provides for compensation towards damages (without acquisition) while placing the tower and stringing the conductor. The local authorities/District Magistrates have been provided Power under Section 16(1) of the Telegraphic Act for adjudication and fixing the compensation.” (b) when power lines run over the land of a citizen, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Doddakka’s case has held the market value of the property goes down approximately to the extent of 30% and therefore, the land owner as petitioner to be compensated; right to property although is not a fundamental right after the 42nd amendment, the same as enshrines a constitutional right under Article 300A and therefore, no interference with the land of the citizen is permissible save by payment of compensation as prescribed by law; (c) the contention of the respondent-KPTCL that the lines were drawn long before and no claim having been made by land owners, no compensation was paid is a feable ground to deny compensation to the owner of the land, the right to compensation having flavours of Constitutional character; (d) the impugned endorsement militates against the law declared by this Court in the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER v. DODDAKKA, ILR 2015 KAR 677 and therefore, is liable to set at naught and matter being remitted for consideration afresh in accordance with law in a time bound manner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back for consideration afresh at the hands of second respondent within three months with the personal hearing of the petitioner or his agent. The decision if not taken within three months, the concerned officer shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-to the petitioner from his pocket for the delay of each week; it hardly needs to be stated that the decision taken on the claim of the petitioner for the payment of compensation shall be intimated to him forthwith. All contentions of the parties are kept open.