Dismissed¶55

Kavyamani M M v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2025WP/12861/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP 12861/2025 (GM-KEB), Karnataka HC, decided 01-09-2025, Ravi V Hosmani J. KPTCL 110 KV SC transmission line over petitioners' land Sy.No.63/2 and 63/4, Malligere Village, Tumkur; corrigendum notification 18.07.2023 (Annexure-H); inadequate compensation for teak, silver oak, coconut, arecanut trees; remedy lies under Section 16(3) Indian Telegraph Act 1885 before District Judge, not writ; writ dismissed with liberty; Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 benefit; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to petitioners to file a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the learned District Judge; all contentions of both parties kept open; benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 made available for time spent in pursuing this writ petition. ¶55

Kavyamani M M Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is tenable/appropriate where petitioners are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation paid or allege compensation was not assessed, given the remedy under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Court. +1 more

¶55

Court's answer

Where a petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation paid or alleges that compensation on any count was not assessed, the grievance must be agitated in a petition under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; a writ petition is not appropriate/tenable for that purpose.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a petition under Section 16(3) of the Act before the learned District Judge, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Ravi V Hosmani, J.), writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 by sibling co-owners seeking quashing of corrigendum notification dated 18/07/2023 (No.KANIEM(VI)/ SAKANIEM(KA)/ BRUKAVI/THU/2023-24/1902-1905, Annexure-H) issued by the Executive Engineer (Electrical), KPTCL, notifying their lands (Sy.No.63/2 - 1 acre 26 guntas; Sy.No.63/4 - 4 acres 32 guntas, Malligere Village, Tumkur) for drawing a 110 KV SC line, and mandamus for assessment/higher compensation for land and trees (coconut, arecanut, teak, silver oak). The lines stood commissioned on 05.08.2024 and some compensation had been paid, with damages assessed separately for corridor area, tower area and trees based on a Forest Officer's inspection. The Court held that dissatisfaction with the quantum of compensation or allegation of non-assessment must be agitated before the District Judge under Section 16(3), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the writ petition was not tenable. Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy; contentions kept open; benefit of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 allowed for time spent.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 12861 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KAVYAMANI M.M D/O MAHALINGIAH W/O MANJU N. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A 45, MALLIGERE VILLAGE MATHIGHATTA POST HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 119.

¶10

KARTHIK M.M

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

S/O MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/A NO.45, MALLIGERE VILLAGE MATHIGHATTA POST HANDANAKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 119.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL, CORPORATE OFFICE KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KPTCL, NO.3, MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KPTCL, NO.3, MAJOR WORKS SUBDIVISION

¶21

TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶22

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST TUMKUR DIVISION TUMKUR 572 101.

¶23

THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE (ZILLA PANCHAYATH) CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI DEVARAJU H.V, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R-4 & R-5)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING TOQUASHING THE IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KANIEM (VI)/ SAKANIEM (KA) / BRUKAVI / THU / 2023-24 / 1902-1905 DATED 18/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE H TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:-

¶34

"i) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned corrigendum notification bearing no.KANIEM(VI)/ SAKANIEM(KA)/ BRUKAVI/THU/2023-24/1902-1905 dated 18/07/2023 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure H to the writ petition in so far as petitioners are concerned and

¶35

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assess the value of the land and tress grown on the petitioners land bearing Sy.No.63/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Malligere Viilage, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur Dsitrict and Sy.No.63/4 measuring 4 acres 32 guntas situated at Malligere Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and fix the compensation for having acquired the above said land and tress and to pay higher compensation to the petitioners as per the valuation fixed by the department of Forest and department of Horaticulture by considering the representations dated 04/11/2024 and 04/11/2024 vide Annexure N and P to the writ petition under the facts and circumstances of the case or

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

iii) Issue any appropriate writ order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and an order as to costs to meet the ends of justice and equity."

¶39

Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are brother and sister - children of Sri Mahalingaiah. In a family partition effected between them, petitioner no.1 was allotted 1 Acre 26 guntas in Sy.no.63/2 and petitioner no.2 was allotted 4 Acres 32 guntas in Sy.no.63/4, both situated in Malligere Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District. It was submitted petitioners' names were mutated in revenue records. During year 2022, respondents no.1 to 3 intended to draw 110 KV SC line over petitioners' lands. A Notification dated 13.12.2022 at Annexure-E was issued. Petitioners' lands were not notified therein. When respondents approached petitioners' lands to draw lines, petitioners opposed installation. It was submitted that petitioners had grown coconut, arecanut, teak, silver oak trees etc. which would be damaged and destroyed by installation.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

It was submitted in subsequent Notification by way of Corrigendum dated 18.07.2023 at Annexure-H, even Sy.no.63 of Malligere Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District, was notified. However, respondents intended to draw line without paying proper/adequate compensation to petitioners and they were threatened with criminal prosecution. It was specifically submitted respondents had not assessed compensation towards certain trees within corridor area and seeks for a direction to respondents to asses and pay same. It was submitted that since deprivation of petitioners' rights was without due process, they were entitled for relief sought for and prayed for allowing writ petition.

¶44

On other hand, Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 and learned AGA for respondents no.4 and 5 sought to oppose petition.

¶45

Sri H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel has today filed an affidavit stating that respondents had already completed installation of over head transmission lines and same were commissioned on 05.08.2024. It was submitted that at time of

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

drawing transmission line, respondents had assessed damages for corridor area, area falling under tower and for trees separately. But, petitioners had opposed determination of damages to trees on ground that valuation of teak and silver oak trees etc., was not proper. It was submitted, jurisdictional Forest Officer had inspected lands and submitted report about existing trees. Based on same, compensation was assessed. It was submitted, if petitioners were aggrieved, they had efficacious remedy of approaching District Court under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and writ petition as presented would not be tenable.

¶50

Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused writ petition papers.

¶51

On perusal of petition and contents of affidavit filed by learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 today, it would appear that respondents have drawn over-head transmission lines on petitioners' lands and paid some compensation. Apparently, petitioners are dissatisfied with compensation. If petitioners are dissatisfied with quantum of compensation paid

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:34163 WP No. 12861 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

or allege that compensation on any count was not assessed, they would require to agitate same in a petition filed under Section 16(3) of Act and writ petition would not be appropriate/tenable. Therefore, reserving liberty to petitioners to file petition under Section 16(3) of Act before learned District Judge, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶56

All contentions of both parties are kept open. For time spent in pursuing this petition, benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, would be available to petitioners.

¶57

Sd /- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶58

Kavyamani M M v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavyamani M M v. the Managing Director

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

Parameshawarappa @ Bapurada Parameshwarappa Vs the Executive Engineer

H R Venkateshachari Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Pramilamma Vs the Executive Engineer

Nsl Sugars Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Seenappa @ Srinivas Vs Kptcl

Mohammed Matheen Vs the State of Karnataka