Dismissed

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab v. District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2022WP/1012/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order permitting a transmission tower on the petitioner's land, holding no violation of the Indian Telegraph Act. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek enhanced compensation before the District Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. Liberty was reserved to file a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to enhance compensation.

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab Vs District Magistrate /… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.1012/2022 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MOHD. AKBAR @ SUNNUSAB S/O ABDUL ROUGH @ NANAYSAB AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS OLD MASJID MOHALLA KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TOWN KARNATAKA-562 120.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMNAGAR DC, RAMANAGAR DC OFFICE RAMANAGAR-562 156.

¶12

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K.P.T.C.L., 2ND FLOOR ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, NORTH DIVISION BANGALORE-560 009.

¶13

THE CHIEF ENGINEER K.P.T.C.L., 2ND FLOOR, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, NORTH DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R-1;

¶16

SRI H.U. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS VIDE DATED 23.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO FOLLOW THE DETAILED SURVEY REPORT DATED 14.10.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND INSTALL THE TOWER NUMBER 25 AT BYCHAPURA VILLAGE MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 r/w Section 164 of Electricity Act 2003 wherein, permission was granted in favour of the Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited to draw transmission lines in the property bearing Sy.No.21 measuring 2- 17.8 guntas situated at Karagadahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Corporation unilaterally shifted the erection of Tower No.25 without issuing any notice to the petitioner. He further submits that respondent No.1 in exercise of the power

¶23

¶24

under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act has not considered the same which has resulted in passing the impugned order which is contrary to the Provision of the Act.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that in erecting the Tower and drawing of transmission lines, the revised survey report has been prepared only to facilitate the contractors in erecting the Towers and drawing of transmission lines. Hence, erecting of Tower and drawing of transmission lines on the petitioner's land is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and impugned order does not warrant any interference. He further submitted that the petitioner has been awarded with a sum of Rs.3,07,405/-towards compensation for utilization of the land for erecting tower and also corridor area. Hence, they submit that this writ petition is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed.

¶26

Learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶27

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tower which was located in Karagadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli has been unilaterally shifted to Sy.No.21 in Bychapura Village. Perusal of the detailed survey report at Annexure-C and revised survey report Annexure-G prepared by the respondent Corporation indicates that Tower No.25 which is said to be erected in Sy.No.21 though in the initial report it was stated that the tower is situated in Bychapura village, so as to facilitate the contractors to erect the towers, revised report has been prepared indicating that the tower No.25 is to be erected in Sy.No.21 of Karagadapura Village.

¶30

In the absence of any violation of the provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, erecting Tower No.25 on the petitioner's land cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The respondent No.1 considering these aspect has rightly passed the impugned order and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶31

¶32

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶33

However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the jurisdictional District Court seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation and damages awarded by the respondent-Corporation.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab v. District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab v. District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkata Reddy Vs G Chandrashekar Reddy

Vishal Amla Vs State of Karnataka

Godrej Agrovet Limited Vs Mr. Niraj Narayan Dutta

Shivu @ Shiiv Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station

Sri. Murali Krishna T Vs the State Represented by