Dismissed¶54

Rajamma v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC7 Aug 2025WP/20773/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; KPTCL 110 KV transmission line over private land; corrigendum notification Annexure-J dt. 18.07.2023; earlier notification Annexure-E dt. 13.12.2022; Indian Telegraph Act 1885 Sections 10, 16 and 16(3) compensation remedy; Articles 226 & 227; deviation of alignment permissible in execution; District Magistrate compensation at Annexure-L unpaid; Malligere and Mathighatta Villages, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur; reliance on W.P. No. 9011/2024; Karnataka High Court, Ravi V Hosmani J, 07.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; liberty reserved to petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for compensation. ¶54

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; liberty reserved to petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for compensation.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether drawing of Transmission Lines without inclusion of petitioners' lands in the notification was illegal. +2 more

¶9

Court's answer

Notification at Annexure-E clearly notified land belonging to petitioner no.2, and the Corrigendum at Annexure-J includes land belonging to petitioner no.1; therefore the contention that the Transmission Lines were drawn without inclusion of petitioners' lands in the notification would not sustain.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The allegation of illegal deviation of alignment would not sustain: in execution of work on the field certain leeway is permitted to authorities while choosing the ideal area for installation of Transmission Lines based on feasibility/convenience looking to the topography of land, and the only remedy for owners of lands is to seek compensation for damages sustained as provided under Sections 10 and 16 of the Act.

¶52

Key takeaways

Since this Court in W.P. no.9011/2024 had already held that the remedy for these very petitioners was to seek compensation under provisions of the Act, filing of one more writ petition would not be justified; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to avail the remedy under Section 16(3) of the Act in accordance with law.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ravi V Hosmani, J.), order dated 07.08.2025 in W.P. No. 20773 of 2024 (GM-KEB) — Petitioners, owners of Sy. No. 11/3 (35 guntas, Malligere Village) and Sy. No. 198/1 (2 acres 33 guntas, Mathighatta Village), Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District, sought quashing of corrigendum notification No.KANIEM (VI)/SAKANIEM(KA)/BRUKAVI/THU/2023-24/1902-1905 dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure-J) and removal of/compensation for 110 KV transmission lines drawn over their lands by KPTCL, pleading improper inclusion in the notification, deviation in alignment, and non-payment of compensation determined by the District Magistrate (Annexure-L). Held: (i) the Annexure-E notification dated 13.12.2022 covered petitioner no.2's land and the Annexure-J corrigendum covered petitioner no.1's land, so the objection as to inclusion failed; (ii) in execution of work on the field, leeway is permitted to authorities in choosing the ideal location for Transmission Lines based on feasibility, convenience and topography, and the deviation objection accordingly failed; and (iii) the only remedy of the landowners is to seek compensation for damages under Sections 10 and 16, particularly Section 16(3), of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as this Court had earlier indicated in W.P. No. 9011 of 2024. Writ petition dismissed, liberty reserved to pursue the compensation remedy.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:30718 WP No. 20773 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 20773 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A MALLIGERE VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 226.

¶9

RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MARULASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT MATHIGHATTA VILLAGE, HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 119.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KPTCL

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30718 WP No. 20773 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NO. 3, MAJOR WORKS SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE TO R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KANIEM (VI)/SAKANIEM(KA)/BRUKAVI/THU/2023-24/1902-1905 DTD. 18.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-J TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Present writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶26

“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/202324/1902-1905 dated 18/07/2023 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure J to the writ petition in so far as petitioners are concerned and

¶27

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the electrical towers erected on the land bearing Sy. No.11/3 measuring 35 guntas situated at Malligere Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District Sy. No.198/1 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas situated at Mathighatta Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District under the facts and circumstances of the case or in the alternate

¶28

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to assess the value of the land, trees and temporary crops growing on the land bearing Sy. No.11/3 measuring 35 guntas situated at Malligere Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District Sy. No.198/1 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas situated at Mathighatta Village, Handanakere

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30718 WP No. 20773 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and fix the compensation for having acquired the above said land and to pay higher compensation to the petitioners under the facts and circumstances of the case or

¶32

iv) 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.”

¶33

Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned counsel for petitioners

¶34

submitted, petitioner no.1 is owner of land bearing Sy.no.11/3 measuring 35 guntas of Malligere Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakana Halli Taluk, Tumkur District. While, petitioner no.2 is owner land in Sy.no.198/1 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas of Mathighatta Village, Handanakere Hobli, Chikkanayakana Halli, Tumkur District. It was submitted, respondents intended to draw 110 KV to SC line over petitioners’ land. Since same was without notifying petitioners, inclusion of their lands in notification, petitioners filed W.P.no.9011/2024. This Court granted interim order and same was later vacated and lines were drawn. Taking note of same, writ petition was disposed of.

¶35

It was submitted, while land of petitioner no.1 was included by issuing a Corrigendum notification at Annexure-J, land of petitioner no.2 was not included. Therefore,

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30718 WP No. 20773 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

respondents were proceeding with laying of electricity transmission lines illegally.

¶39

It was also submitted, even compensation determined by District Magistrate at Annexure-L was not paid. It was alleged, there was deviation in alignment of lines to disadvantage of petitioners. Thus, without payment of compensation and without any authority of law, respondents entered petitioners' land, destroyed crops and drew Transmission Lines. Therefore, prayed for granting reliefs.

¶40

On other hand, Smt.Padma S. Uttur, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 opposed writ petition and submitted, land bearing Sy.no.198 belonging to petitioner no.2 was included in earlier notification at Annexure-E dated 13.12.2022, while land of petitioner no.1 was included by issuing Corrigendum at Annexure-J. Thus, there was no illegality insofar as inclusion of petitioners' lands for drawing of Transmission Lines.

¶41

It was submitted, since lines were already drawn, only remedy for petitioners was to seek compensation under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act,' for short),

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30718 WP No. 20773 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

as observed by this Court while dismissing W.P.no.9011/2024. Therefore, without any justification, petitioners had filed this writ petition.

¶45

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶46

record.

¶47

Admittedly, this writ petition is filed alleging high handed action of respondents, firstly in deviating from original alignment for drawing of Transmission Lines and proceeding to drawing said Lines without properly including lands in notification and without payment of compensation.

¶48

Insofar as drawing of Transmission Lines without inclusion of petitioner’s land in notification, it is seen notification at Annexure-E clearly notified land belonging to petitioner no.2, while Corrigendum to said notification at Annexure-J includes land belonging to petitioner no.1. Therefore, said contention would not sustain.

¶49

Even allegation of illegal deviation of alignment, would not sustain, since this Court in WP no.9011/2024 has held mere inclusion of names of villages in notification would be

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30718 WP No. 20773 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

sufficient. Moreover, while execution of work on field, certain leeway is permitted to authorities while choosing ideal area for installation of Transmission Lines, based on feasibility/ convenience looking to topography of land. Therefore, only remedy for owners of lands would be to seek compensation for damages sustained as provided under Sections 10 and 16 of Act.

¶53

Insofar as last ground that action of drawing of lines were without paying compensation, this Court in WP no.9011/2024 itself held remedy for these very petitioners was to seek compensation under provisions of Act.

¶54

Under such circumstances, filing of one more writ petition would not be justified and therefore, writ petition is dismissed, but reserving liberty to avail remedy under Section 16 (3) of Act, in accordance with law.

¶55

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

¶57

Rajamma v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Devaki Acharthi Vs Smt. Divya Acharya

M/S Suryoday One Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Abdul Rauf Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt. Gangamma, Vs the Office of Municipal Council

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority Vs Rangamma

Sri G Shivashankar Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom)