JUDGMENT : These intra-court appeals are filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.5578/2010 and 8078/2010. 2. W.A. No.373/2012 is filed by the land losers/petitioners challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the District Judge which was enhanced by learned Single Judge of this Court, while W.A. No.550/2012 is filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘Corporation’ in short) challenging the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.5578/2010 and 8078/2010. 3. The facts leading to the filing of W.P.Nos.5578/2010 and 8078/2010 are that the land bearing Sy.Nos.202/1A and 202/2A situate at Metikurke Village, Hiryur Taluk, Chitradurga District were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural industrial purposes. The land losers/ petitioners purchased the above land in terms of a sale deed dated 05.08.1992 to install a decorticating factory. They got a plan sanctioned for the building. It is stated that a portion of the land in question was acquired by the National Highway Authorities for widening the NH-4 and determined the market value of the land so acquired at Rs.75/-per sq.ft. and passed an award on 24.06.2005. Later, the Corporation drew high tension cables over a portion of the land which divided the property into two pieces. The land losers/petitioners claimed compensation which was denied by the Corporation. The land losers/petitioners therefore filed W.P.No.23600/2005 to direct the Corporation to remove the high tension power line and the high tension tower constructed on their land. The writ petition was disposed of directing the land losers/petitioners to claim compensation in accordance with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The land losers/petitioners therefore, sought compensation at the rate of Rs.350/-per sq.ft. as on the date of using the land for installation of high tension tower and the electric line. The land losers/petitioners contended that after acquisition of 18 guntas of land for the highway, 50% of the remaining land to an extent of 2 acres 29 guntas could not be used for industrial purposes in view of the overhead high tension line passing through the land. Therefore, they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.350/-per sq.ft. for 50% of the land out of 2 acres 29 guntas along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of installation of the said High Tension Tower and electric line. Therefore, they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.350/-per sq.ft. for 50% of the land out of 2 acres 29 guntas along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of installation of the said High Tension Tower and electric line. When the Corporation failed to pay the compensation, the land losers/petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.16/2006 before the Principal District Judge at Chitradurga under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.350/-per sq.ft. for 50% of the land out of 2 acres 29 guntas with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of installation of high tension tower and electric line. The District Judge in terms of the Order dated 05.11.2007 allowed the petition and determined the market value at a sum of Rs.65/-per sq.ft. and held that the land losers/petitioners were entitled to compensation of Rs.17,33,550/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till payment. 4. The Corporation challenged this order before this Court in W.P.No.3260/2008 while the land losers/petitioners also filed W.P.No.10517/2008 for enhancement of the compensation. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of an order dated 09.09.2009 in terms of which, the claim of the land losers/petitioners was ordered to be reconsidered. 5. Based on the aforesaid said order, the District Judge conducted proceedings, passed an order dated 08.12.2009 determining the market value of the property at a sum of Rs.38,500/-as against the earlier quantified amount of Rs.17,33,550/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Judge, the land losers/petitioners filed W.P.Nos.5578/2010 and 8078/2010. 7. The learned Single Judge held that the land losers/petitioners could still utilize the land to raise agricultural crops in the land under the electric lines and therefore, held that the land is not totally unfit for agriculture. The learned Single Judge also held that the land did not lie in an industrial township to consider whether it could be used for the purpose of industrial layout. The learned Single Judge further held that the height of the structures of the intended factory of the land losers/petitioners would not be more than 15-20 feet tall and such structures would not be in conflict with the safety of the power lines. The learned Single Judge further held that the height of the structures of the intended factory of the land losers/petitioners would not be more than 15-20 feet tall and such structures would not be in conflict with the safety of the power lines. The learned Single Judge noticed that a portion of a land was acquired for widening of national highway No.4 and the compensation was determined at a sum of Rs.75/-per sq.ft. But, the learned Single Judge held that the amount could not be considered as a safe guideline to assess the compensation in the present case as the land would continue remain with the land losers/petitioners. Hence, the learned Single Judge felt it appropriate to award Rs.5/-per sq.ft. for the aerial encroachment and sum of Rs.75/-per sq.ft. for the area of the tower measuring 189 sq.ft. and thus, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,46,030/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeals are filed. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the power line has now bifurcated the property in to two parts and that it would be impossible for them to use the land for the purpose for which they had purchased. They contended that the utility of the land is now depleted since no structures can be now put up underneath the power lines and a set back area is also prescribed which diminishes the utility of the land. Therefore, he contended that the compensation awarded by the District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge is liable to be modified. He contended that the market value determined by the National Highway Authorities would be a safe guideline to determine the market value in the present case. He contended the land is converted for non agricultural industrial use and therefore, the appellant cannot undertake any agricultural activity in the land in question. Be that as it may, he contended that since the utility of the entire land is wasted, 50% of the land has to be treated as the affected portion and compensation has to be determined at the market value at a sum of Rs.75/-per sq.ft. The learned counsel brought to our notice a copy of the sketch of the power line running through the land of the land losers/petitioners which indicate that the property is now bifurcated into two portions. The learned counsel brought to our notice a copy of the sketch of the power line running through the land of the land losers/petitioners which indicate that the property is now bifurcated into two portions. The learned counsel brought to our notice a decision passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER Vs. DODDAKKA, 2014(6) KARLJ 185. He also brought to our notice the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS, 2007(6) SCC 792 and invited our attention to para No.9 and 10 of the Judgment which is extracted below: “9. Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefor. Section 10 of the Act empowers the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, or posts in or upon any immovable property. Section 11 empowers the officers to enter on property in order to repair or remove telegraph lines or posts. Section 12 empowers the authority to grant permission for laying down such lines to a local authority in terms of clauses (c) & (d) of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act subject to reasonable conditions as it may think fit. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under :- "16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.-(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them. (2) If, after the making of an order under section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. (4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3), or subsection (4) shall be final: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.” 10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.” 9. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.” 9. Per contra, the counsel for the corporation contended that the market value fixed by the National Highway Authority cannot be the criteria as in the latter case, the possession of the land would be taken over while in the present case, the possession of the land would be with the petitioners. He contended that the land losers/petitioners could still utilize the remaining portion of the land and therefore, they cannot claim that the utility of the land is diminished. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the land losers/petitioners the Corporation has to follow the provisions made in the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 while drawing overhead lines. Rule 77 deals with the clearance to be provided from the ground to lowest conductor. Rule 79 provides for clearance from low and medium voltage lines and service lines which is extracted below: “79. Clearance from buildings of low and medium voltage lines and service lines:- (1) Where a low or medium voltage overhead lines passes above or adjacent to or terminates on any building, the following minimum clearances from any accessible point, on the basis of maximum sag, shall be observed:- (a) for any flat roof, open balcony, verandah roof and lean-to-roof-- (i) when the line passes above the building a vertical clearance of 2.5 metres from the highest point, and (ii) when the line passes adjacent to the building a horizontal clearance of 1.2 metres from the nearest point, and (b) for pitched roof-- (i) when the line passes above the building a vertical clearance of 2.5 metres immediately under the lines, and (ii) when the line passes adjacent to the building a horizontal clearance of 1.2 metres. (2) Any conductor so situated as to have a clearance less than that specified in sub-rule (1) shall be adequately insulated and shall be attached words “by means of metal clips” omitted by GSR 523, dated 28.3.1966 (w.e.f. 9.4.1966) at suitable intervals to a bare earthed bearer wire having a breaking strength of not less than 350 kg. (2) Any conductor so situated as to have a clearance less than that specified in sub-rule (1) shall be adequately insulated and shall be attached words “by means of metal clips” omitted by GSR 523, dated 28.3.1966 (w.e.f. 9.4.1966) at suitable intervals to a bare earthed bearer wire having a breaking strength of not less than 350 kg. (3) The horizontal clearance shall be measured when the line is at a maximum deflection from the vertical due to wind pressure.” 11. While Rule 80 provides for clearance from buildings of high and extra high voltage lines. 12. In the present case, the corporation has drawn transmission lines and have erected a tower in an area measuring 30ft x 40ft in the land of the land losers/petitioners. On account of the overhead lines, the land losers/petitioners are deprived of undertaking any industrial activity below the overhead lines and therefore to that extent, they are deprived of the usage and utility of the land. This deprivation shall continue so long as the overhead lines exist over the property of the land losers/petitioners. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Kerala State Electricity board (Supra) it cannot be gainsaid that there is diminision of the value of the property over which the overhead lines are drawn. In the instant case, the property of the land losers/petitioners lie adjacent to the NH-4 since a portion of the land is acquired by the National Highway Authorities for the purpose of widening the Highway. Thus, the property in question has a high potential and having regard to the fact that the overhead line passes through the middle of the land of the land losers/petitioners and having regard to the fact that the National Highway Authority has determined the market value at Rs.75/-per sq.ft., it is appropriate in the present case too, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the market value is determined at a sum of Rs.75/-per sq.ft. Since the area covered by the overhead lines is around 24 guntas of land and having regard to the fact that the land losers/petitioners are deprived of the usage of this area forever, they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.75/-per sq.ft. Since the area covered by the overhead lines is around 24 guntas of land and having regard to the fact that the land losers/petitioners are deprived of the usage of this area forever, they are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.75/-per sq.ft. Since the tower is constructed within 24 guntas of land, the question of granting any compensation towards the area occupied by the tower would not arise. Thus the land losers/petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.19,60,200/-as compensation towards the deprivation of the use of 24 guntas of land belonging to them. The land losers/petitioners are entitled to interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of drawing the overhead lines till the date of payment. Hence, the appeal filed by the land losers/petitioners in W.A. No.373/2012 is allowed and the appeal filed by the corporation in W.A.No.550/2012 is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.