Allowed

Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli v. the Executive Engineer (Elec)

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2023WP/100059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged endorsements rejecting their objections to electric line construction across their lands. The court held endorsements were arbitrary, unreasoned, and violative of Article 300-A. Petition allowed; endorsements quashed; matter remitted to reconsider objections.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsements quashed; 1st respondent directed to reconsider objections and pass orders within 25.01.2023; directive issued to avoid coercive steps on petitioners lands.

Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli Vs the Executive… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100059 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MOHAN S/O ANNAPPA SHANALLI AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANTHEPETE ROAD, BANAVASI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR-581318.

¶9

SRI MUNAVAR KHAN S/O. INAYAT KHAN KHAZI, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, KHAZI GALLI, BANAVASI TQ. SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR-581318

¶10

SRI. VINAYAK S/O. SUBRAYA REVANKAR, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.MAHAVEERONI, BANAVASI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR-581318.

¶11

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.01.2010:18:28 +0530

¶12

SRI SAINATH S/O DATTATREY SHANALLI AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, MARKET ROAD, BANAVASI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR-581318.

¶13

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, SUB DIV, KPTCL, SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581318.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SIRSI SUB DIVISION, SIRSI DIST.- UTTARA KANNADA-581318.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI C.R.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (BY SRI PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENTS BEARING NO.KANIELE(VI)/ BRAKAVI/ U.K/ SIRSI/SAKAENG(KA) 22-23/742-45 DATED 16/12/2022, BEARING NO.KANIELE(VI)/ BRAKAVI/ U.K/ SIRSI/SAKAENG(KA) 22-23/738-41 DATED 16/12/2022 AND BEARING NO.KANIELE(VI)/ BRAKAVI/U.K/SIRSI/SAKAENG(KA) 22-23/734-37 DATED 16/12/2022 KANIELE(VI)/ BRAKAVI/UK/SIRSI/SAKAENG(KA)22/23/730-33 DATED 16/12/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE K, K1, K2 AND K3 AS NULL AND VOID AND TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 10/12/2022 ANNEXURE-G AND G1 AND RESCHEDULE THE PROJECT.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs ;

¶27

I. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the endorsements bearing No.Kaniele(vi)/ Brakavi/u.k/sirsi/sakaeng(ka) 22-23/742-45 dated 16/12/2022, bearing no.kaniele(vi)/brakavi/u.k/ sirsi/sakaeng(ka) 22-23/738-41 dated 16/12/2022 and bearing no.kaniele(vi)/ brakavi/u.k/ Sirsi/ Sakaeng(ka)22-23/734-37 dated 16/12/2022 Kaniele (vi)/Brakavi / Uk/ Sirsi/ Sakaeng(ka) 22/23/730-33 dated 16/12/2022 vide Annexure-K, K1, K2 and K3 as null and void.

¶28

II. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to reconsider the objections of the petitioners dated 10/12/2022 Annexure-G and G1 and reschedule the project.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP

¶30

¶31

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶32

appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶33

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits despite there existing Government various land which is available for the purpose of drawing electric lines for the purpose of establishment of Sub-Divisional Station at Banavasi, the petitioners are putting up towers and drawing electric lines across the petitioners’ lands without following due process of law. It is the grievance of the petitioners that when the petitioners submitted objections at Annexures-G and G1 dated 10.12.2022, intimating the respondents that having regard to the topography of the area as can be seen from the map at Annexure-E indicating the proposed lines, the respondents have issued the impugned endorsements at Annexures-K, K1, K2 and K3 rejecting the objections of the petitioners on the sole ground that it was not possible to draw the lines and erect

¶34

¶35

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶36

towers across the Government various lands since obtaining permission from the various departments of the State Government would require considerable time. It is submitted that the said reasons assigned by the respondents in rejecting the objections of the petitioners are illegal and arbitrary warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶37

Per Contra , the learned counsel for the

¶38

respondents would support the impugned endorsements and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, a perusal of the impugned endorsements dated 16.12.2022 will indicate that the sole/only ground on which the objections of the petitioners were rejected is that the procedure for obtaining permission from the various departments would consume a lot of time and consequently an alternative route across the petitioners’

¶40

¶41

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶42

lands and other private lands was identified by the respondents for the purposes of drawing of electric lines and erecting towers. In my considered opinion, apart from

¶43

the fact that the aforesaid reasons assigned by the respondents, which is also a statutory body which would necessarily have to work in tandem and in coordination with the various departments of the State Government cannot be termed as valid or tenable, the impugned endorsements are not only unreasoned, cryptic and nonspeaking endorsements without assigning valid or proper reasons, thereby, being violative of principles of nature justice, impugned endorsements and the work proposed to be carried out on by the respondents over the private holdings/lands of the petitioners are also violative to constitutional rights guaranteed and protected to the petitioners under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned endorsements deserve to be quashed

¶44

¶45

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶46

and matter remitted back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶47

In the result, I pass the following :

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶50

(ii) The impugned endorsements at AnnexuresK, K1, K2 and K3 dated 16.12.2022 issued by

¶51

the 1^st respondent are hereby quashed.

¶52

(iii) The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the objections of the petitioners and take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the topography of the land and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as expeditiously as possible on or before 25.01.2023.

¶53

(iv) It is further directed that till the 1^st respondent takes appropriate decision and

¶54

passes appropriate orders as stated supra , the

¶55

¶56

WP No. 100059 of 2023

¶57

respondents shall not take any precipitate

¶58

/coercive steps pursuant to Annexures-K, K1, K2

¶59

and K3 insofar as the subject lands of the

¶60

petitioners are concerned.

¶61

SD JUDGE

¶62

CKK

Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli v. the Executive Engineer (Elec)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli v. the Executive Engineer (Elec)

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

Revansiddayya S/O Sharnayya Shivappayyanamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Fakirappa Arer Vs the Superintendent of Police, Haveri

Siddappa S/O Basappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Premavva W/O Devappa Uppar Vs Dyamappa S/O Kariyappa Bhavi @ Kinnal

Ravindra S/O Dundappa Kittur Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri. Jayaprakash Gangadharappa Tenginakai Vs Sri. Ashok Krishnappa Banakatti