Disposed

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) v. Sri. S. Seetharamaiah

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/2101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPTCL petitioned the Deputy Commissioner for removal of obstruction by two landowners resisting erection of transmission towers. The Deputy Commissioner permitted execution but directed payment of higher compensation after higher-officer approval. The court held this direction unsustainable and set aside that portion of the order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.07.2019 in R.A.Misc.10/2019 set aside only in respect of the direction to obtain higher-authority approval and pay higher compensation.

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) Vs Sri. S. Seetharamaiah — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 2101 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. S.SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SEETHARAMEGOWDA,

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI.MIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O MUDDEGOWDA.,

¶15

RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT: BANASAMUDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLY TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA-571 401.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SYED ADAM IMRAN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶21

SMT RADHA RANGASWAMY., AGA FOR R3; R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:12.12.2024)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for petitioner, Sri.Syed Adam Imran., counsel on behalf of Sri.Rahul.P., for respondent No.1 and Smt.Radha Rangaswamy., AGA for respondent No.3 have appeared in person.

¶26

An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on 02.02.2021. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient vide order dated 12.12.2024. Respondent No.2 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶27

Counsel Sri.Syed Adam Imran., submits that short accommodation may be granted.

¶28

This Court is not inclined to grant time. The reason is plain. The petition is of the year 2021. It is pending from three

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶31

years. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass order on the merits of the case.

¶32

2. The facts are stated as under:

¶33

It is stated that the KPTCL proposed a Scheme for construction of 66 KV DC Line for a distance of 9.924 Kms from 220/66/11KV T.K.Halli, Station to 66 K.V. Iggalur Tapping Point on the existing corridor of 66 K.V T.K.Halli - Akkurmole SC line in Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District. The Deputy General Manager (Technical) KPTCL has accorded approval of the said Scheme vide Official Memorandum dated 16.04.2015.

¶34

A detailed survey for the proposed construction of 66 KV DC Line for a distance of 9.924 Kms from 220/66/11 KV T.K.Halli Station to 66 KV Iggalur Tapping Point on the existing Corridor of 66KV T.K. Halli – Akkurmole SC Line in Channapattana Taluk, Ramanagara District has been conducted and the project details have been published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 15.10.2015 and the same has been notified to the public in two daily circulated newspapers; one in Kannada - ‘Udaya Vani’ and another in English - ‘Times of India’. The status of the present work out of the total 49 Towers, 48 Towers have been stubbed casted.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶37

When things stood thus, the first and second respondent claiming to be the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.163/1 measuring to an extent of 02 Acre 21 Guntas obstructed for erection of Location Nos.9 and 10 and execution of the said Scheme. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition before the Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for removal of obstruction for erection of tower and drawing of the Transmission Line within the corridor Area of the existing Line.

¶38

Pursuant to the petition filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner - the third respondent registered a case in No. R.A.Misc.10/2019 and issued notice to the first and second respondent as to why the obstruction should not be removed for execution of the Scheme. The first and second respondent appeared and after hearing the arguments and on the basis of the submission made by the first and second respondent, the petition came to be disposed of and permitted the petitioner to execute the said Scheme by paying the compensation already awarded. It is said that the Court without considering the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 has further issued a direction to the petitioner to pay higher

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶40

compensation after getting approval from the Higher Officer. The said direction is without basis and the same is contrary to law.

¶41

Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left with no other of alternative and efficacious remedy has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

Sri.H.V.Devaraju, counsel for petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has erred in directing the petitioner to pay higher compensation after obtaining the approval form the Higher Officers.

¶43

Next, he submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act.

¶44

A further submission was made that the KPTCL has a right to enter upon the Lands of the citizens for the purpose of implementation of a sanctioned Scheme and if the land owners resist obstruction, the Deputy Commissioner being the District Magistrate has the jurisdiction to remove the obstruction if any caused by the land owner/s under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act .

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶47

Counsel vehemently contended that the KPTCL has assessed the compensation payable to the first and second respondent by securing the report from the Department of Horticulture and has determined the compensation payable to the first and second respondent at Rs.33,436/-.

¶48

Counsel sought to urge that the first and second respondent on receipt of determined compensation, has a statutory remedy under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶49

Lastly, he submitted that appropriate writ may be issued and the Writ Petition may be allowed.

¶50

Counsel for respondent No.1 justified the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Counsel submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

¶51

AGA for respondent No.3 submits that appropriate order may be passed.

¶52

Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers

¶53

with care.

¶54

The present writ is filed mainly on the ground that the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner to pay higher

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶57

compensation after getting approval from the Higher Authority is untenable and the same is also contrary to the law.

¶58

It is noticed that the petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District in Case No.R.A.Misc.10/2019 for removal of obstruction. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 16.07.2019 and directed the first and second respondent not to obstruct. However, while passing the order, the Deputy Commissioner further directed the petitioner to pay higher compensation, after getting approval from Higher Officers.

¶59

The law is well established in this regard. Whenever the landowner obstructs for the erection of the tower and laying the Electricity Transmission Line, the remedy would be to file a petition for removal of the obstruction. The compensation will be determined and the same will be paid to the land owners. Suffice it to say that if the land owner is not satisfied with the determined compensation, he or she has a remedy under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 to approach the jurisdictional District Judge.

¶60

In the present case, compensation of Rs.33,436/- has been determined. But the Deputy Commissioner has

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:51464 WP No. 2101 of 2021

¶63

erroneously directed the petitioner to pay higher compensation, after getting approval from Higher Officers. The Deputy Commissioner has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters.

¶64

In my considered opinion, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable in law.

¶65

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of . The order dated:16.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya in No.R.A.Misc.10/2019 is set-aside to the extent directing the petitioner to approach and take approval from Higher Authority and pay compensation to the first and second respondent.

¶66

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶67

MRP

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) v. Sri. S. Seetharamaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) v. Sri. S. Seetharamaiah

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

Smt B R Savitha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele)

Smt N B Leelavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramishetty Srinivasulu Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Chikkamma Vs the Mangalore Elecricity Supply Company Limited

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) Vs Sri. S. Umesha

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri.N. Narasimhamurthy