Dismissed¶60

Shri Mruthunjaya G.A. v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2025WA/1817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Division Bench writ appeal dismissed (25.01.2025); NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB; WA No. 1817 of 2024 (GM-KEB); KPTCL 66/11 KV electricity transmission line; challenge to route through agricultural lands in Holalkere Taluka, Chitradurga; no enforceable right to alter transmission line route; route selection after survey under Telegraph Act; objections considered and personal hearing given; District Magistrate order 14.07.2023; office memorandum 11.07.2024 unchallenged; second round of litigation; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; Articles 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of as not surviving. ¶60

Shri Mruthunjaya G.A. Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of as not surviving.

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners had an enforceable right to seek alteration of the route of the proposed 66/11 KV electricity transmission line of KPTCL passing through their lands. +2 more

¶59

Court's answer

No enforceable right accrues to the petitioners to seek alteration of the route of the transmission line.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' objections were truly considered by the authority and no error could be booked in the learned Single Judge's judgment dismissing the writ petition.

¶59

Key takeaways

On reconsideration, a report was again solicited and it was found not feasible to change the route of the line to accept the petitioners' prayer.ratio¶57
The subsequent office memorandum dated 11.07.2024 and the decision reflected therein were not challenged by the petitioners.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (N. V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, and M. I. Arun, J.; judgment delivered per the Chief Justice) dismissed Writ Appeal No. 1817 of 2024 (GM-KEB), filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, against the learned Single Judge's order dated 28.10.2024 dismissing W.P. No. 2645/2024. The writ challenge was to KPTCL laying a 66/11 KV electricity transmission line through the appellants' lands (Survey Nos. 54/3A, 101/8, 53/10A, 246/2 and others) in Kasaba Hobli/Holalkere Taluka, Chitradurga. Held: the petitioners had no enforceable right to seek alteration of the route, which was selected after survey as contemplated under the Telegraph Act; objections pending since 2020 were considered, personal hearing was given, and on reconsideration a report found rerouting not feasible; the office memorandum dated 11.07.2024 confirming rejection of objections was not challenged; the appeal was a second round of litigation; no error was found in the impugned judgment. Pending interlocutory applications stood disposed of as not surviving.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1817 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI MRUTHUNJAYA G.A. AGE: 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MUSANDIHAL GODABANAHAL POST TQ. AND DIST: CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶9

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

H. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. HALAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶11

G.E. SHASHIDHAR @ UMESH

¶12

AGE: 53 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶13

RAJAPPA S/O. GADRAPPA

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶15

AGE: 56 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶16

CHIKKANNA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGE: 62 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶17

RANGAPPA S/O. DODDANINGAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. B.G. HALLI HOLELKERE TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶18

7. NINGAPPA

¶19

AGE: 72 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. B.G. HALLI, HOLELKERE TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶20

H. NAGAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA AGE: 72 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. B.G. HALLI, HOLELKERE TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶21

S.B. MANJUNATH S/O. BASAPPA AGE: 50 YEARS

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶23

OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. B.G. HALLI, HOLELKERE TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA -577 501.

¶24

G. RAMESH S/O. GANGADHARAPPA

¶25

AGE: 40 YEARS

¶26

OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL AT POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶27

…APPELLANTS

¶28

(BY SRI ABHISHEK A., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶31

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA (KPTCL) CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶32

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA (KPTCL) CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶33

BASAPPA S/O. BAIRAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. MUSANDIHAL TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶35

SIDDESH M.T. S/O. THIPPESWAMY M. AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL AT POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶36

G. RAJAPPA S/O. GANGADHARAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. ANNEHAL AT POST TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R.1.)

¶39

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2645/2024 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

¶40

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA

¶42

and

¶43

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶47

Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhishek A. for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. K.S.Harish for respondent No.1.

¶48

The appellants-original petitioners have sought to address challenge by filing the present appeal, to the judgment and order dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition No.2645 of 2024.

¶49

The grievance of the petitioners raised in the writ petition was against the action on part of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to lay 66/11 KV electricity transmission line on the route of Kasaba Hobli, Godabanahal, Annehal, Musandihal and Holalkere Taluka, Banjagondanahalli village. The line proposed to be set up, it was the grievance of the petitioners, was made to pass through the land bearing Survey Nos.54/3A, 101/8, 53/10A, 246/2, 57/3, 108/1A1, 100/7, 106/1B4, 100/2B1, 106/1B2, 109/2, 100/4 and 100/5.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶51

3.1. The petitioners had already raised objections before the District Magistrate as back as in the year 2020. The objections were overruled by the Competent Authority and the KPTCL was permitted to proceed with the scheme of laying the transmission line. The petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No.8391 of 2023 before this Court which was after a gap of three years.

¶52

3.2. The Court passed an order dated 21.04.2023 directing the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter. It is recorded by learned Single Judge that personal hearing was given to the parties. The District Magistrate took into account the contentions of the parties, passed the order dated 14.07.2023 rejecting the objections of the petitioners. It is this order dated 14.07.2023 which was challenged again by the petitioners by filing writ petition No.2645 of 2024 which has resulted into dismissal as per the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge.

¶53

It was observed by learned Single Judge that pursuant to the representation of the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner was directed to consider the grievance, carry out the spot inspection and submit a report. The said report was filed and on the basis of the report, office memorandum dated 11.07.2024 was issued by

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶55

which the decision in the order dated 14.07.2023 was confirmed. It is to be noted that subsequent office memorandum dated 11.07.2024 and the decision reflected therein is not challenged by the petitioners.

¶56

Apart and in addition to the above aspect, the order dated 14.07.2023 as well as the office memorandum dated 11.07.2024 observed that the acceptance of the petitioners request to alter the route of the transmission line would lead to technical difficulties and practical issues. The route of the transmission line was selected by undergoing the necessary procedure including survey as contemplated under the Telegraph Act.

¶57

5.1. The present appeal was a second route of litigation. The petitioners case was considered earlier by the Court and the Competent Authority was directed to reconsider the matter. At that juncture, a report was again solicited and it was found that it was not feasible to change the route of the line to accept the prayer of the petitioners. The petitioners have been allowed to raise their objections and were also given personal hearing. The objections were considered by the authority.

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB WA No. 1817 of 2024

¶59

No right accrues for the petitioners. When there is no enforceable right to seek alteration of the route of the transmission line and the fact that the objections of the petitioners were truly considered by the authority, no error could be booked in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition.

¶60

The present appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

¶61

In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly disposed of.

¶62

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶63

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶64

hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Shri Mruthunjaya G.A. v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mruthunjaya G.A. v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Azeez Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Uma K Bhaskar Vs Sri Siddartha Education Society

Bengaluru Development Authroity Vs Sri Suresh H T

Smt Susheelamma Vs the State of Karnataka

G v Sathish Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Mary Juje D Souza Vs the State of Karnataka