Sri. D. M. Gopal Gowda Vs Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.MAG/CR/01/2025, MAG/CR/03/2025, MAG/CR/04/2025, MAG/CR/05/2025 AND MAG/CR/06/2025 ANNEXURE-A1 TO A5 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 23.06.25 DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT AS PER THE APPROVED DPR WITHOUT ANY DIVISION AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34897 WP No. 26919 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Challenging proceedings in case no.MAG/CR/01/2025, MAG/CR/03/2025, MAG/CR/04/2025, MAG/CR/05/2025 and MAG/CR/06/2025 at Annexures-A1 to A5 initiated by respondent no.1 and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3 not to implement project without approval of DPR, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Sri Shripad Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioners were owners of land bearing Survey no.33/2, 10/5, 57/2, 7/4 and 9/4 situated at Muddalinganahalli village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, and petitioners were cultivating said lands. When respondents no.2 and 3 approached them for installation of 66 KV Overhead Transmission Lines from Dabaspet Sub-station to DoddaBelavangala Sub-station. When petitioners opposed same, respondents no.2 and 3 approached respondent no.1 for removal of obstruction. In pursuance of same, proceedings at Annexures-A1 to A5 were initiated and petitioners were notified. But, on verification, it was found that Notification dated 10.03.2021 at Annexure-E, notifying villages through

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:34897 WP No. 26919 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

which overhead transmission lines were supposed to pass, did not include Muddalinganahalli village. Therefore, impugned proceedings initiated insofar as petitioners' lands would be illegal. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed.

¶38

Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel directed to accept notice for respondents no.2 and 3, on instructions, filed memo producing copy of Gazatte Notification dated 17.05.2025 and paper publication to substantiate that Muddalinganahalli village was later included in Notification dated 17.05.2025. It was submitted, as there was obstruction while laying transmission lines, they had approached respondent no.1-District Magistrate, on 28.04.2025 as per Annexures-J series, under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short) for removal of obstruction. Therefore, there was sufficient justification for respondent no.1 to have initiated proceedings and sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶39

Learned AGA would second submission.

¶40

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶41

record.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:34897 WP No. 26919 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

From above, it is seen, petitioners' grievance

¶46

against proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 against petitioners under Section 16(1) of Act, is mainly on ground that petitioners' village was not notified for drawing of overhead transmission lines. Indeed perusal of Notification dated 10.03.2021 at Annexure-E would reveal that Muddalinganahalli village is not included. Though learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 has today filed subsequent Gazette Notification dated 17.05.2025, which includes Muddalinganahalli village, same is dated 17.05.2015 and gazatted on 09.06.2025 whereas petition under Section 16(1) of Act at Annexure-J series was filed on 28.04.2025 by respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 fairly submitted that date of filing of Annexure-J series was prior to issuance of notification dated 09.06.2025. Consequently, proceedings would be illegal. Therefore, on said ground, petitioners would be entitled to succeed insofar as proceedings at Annexures-A1 to A5.

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:34897 WP No. 26919 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

In view of above, writ petition is allowed .

¶52

Proceedings in case no.MAG/CR/01/2025, MAG/CR/03/2025, MAG/CR/04/2025, MAG/CR/05/2025 and MAG/CR/06/2025 initiated by respondent no.1 at Annexures-A1 to A5 on basis of petitions at Annexure-J series, are quashed . However, respondents no.2 and 3 would be at liberty to approach respondent no.1 again, in case of obstruction, in accordance with law.

¶53

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶54

AV

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. D. M. Gopal Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. D. M. Gopal Gowda v. Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

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

M/S. Emerald Agency Vs Mr. Zakirulla Shariff

Sri K P Ravish Vs the Bangalore Electricity Supply Co.

Mrs Faizya Farook Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Prasad K C Vs the Assistant Executive Entginer (Ele)

Sri MD Saleem Vs the Secretary

Sri. Lakshmi Adinarayana Traders Vs the State of Karnataka