Disposed

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

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024WP/7861/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPTCL sought removal of a landowner's obstruction to erection of tower no. 44 on its approved 66 KV transmission line scheme after the Deputy Commissioned directed crop compensation instead. The work was completed following an interim order, so the court disposed of the writ petition as nothing survived for consideration.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition disposed of as the work was completed and nothing survived for consideration.

The Executive Engineer (Elec.) Vs Sri. S. Umesha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51454 WP No. 7861 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 7861 OF 2021 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. S.UMESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SARAGURU VILLAGE, HALAGURU HOBLI, MALAVALLY TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA - 571 430.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(R1-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED:12.12.2024 BY SMT. RADHA RANGASWAMY., AGA FOR R2)

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:51454 WP No. 7861 of 2021

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Radha Rangaswamy., AGA for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶22

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 19.04.2021. A perusal of the daily order sheet depicts that notice to respondent No.1 is held sufficient vide order dated 12.12.2024. Respondent No.1 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶23

The facts are stated as under:-

¶24

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 Channapattana Taluk, Ramanagara District. The Deputy General Manager (Technical) KPTCL has accorded approval of the said Scheme vide Official Memorandum dated 16.04.2015.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51454 WP No. 7861 of 2021

¶26

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.

¶27

When things stood thus, the first respondent claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.244/1 measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 10 Guntas obstructed for erection of Location No.44 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.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:51454 WP No. 7861 of 2021

¶30

Pursuant to the petition filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner - the second respondent registered a case in No. R.A.Misc.04/2019 and issued notice to the first respondent as to why the obstruction should not be removed for execution of the Scheme. The first respondent appeared and after hearing the arguments and on the basis of the submission made by the first respondent, instead of passing an order for removal of the obstruction and granting permission to execute the work, disposed of the petition vide order dated 14.06.2019 and directed the KPTCL pay the compensation for the loss of the crop. 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.

¶31

Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers

¶32

with care.

¶33

Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., on instructions submits that pursuant to the interim order dated 19.04.2021, obstructions have been removed, line has been drawn and the work has been completed. Counsel also submits that the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:51454 WP No. 7861 of 2021

¶36

Horticulture Department has determined the compensation payable to the first respondent at Rs.24,942/-. Counsel, therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶37

The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioner about the removal of the obstruction and the completion of the work is placed on record.

¶38

Because of the completion of the work as of today, nothing survives for consideration in the Writ Petition at this juncture. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶39

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶40

MRP,TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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. Seetharamaiah

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri.N. Narasimhamurthy