Chennarayappa Vs Deputy General Manager

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REP BY POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., BANNERGHATTA SUB STATION, 26 K.H, KANAKAPURA ROAD, PAPPARAPATTI - SOMANAHALLI RD, BENGALURU - 560 082.

¶15

TAHSILDHAR, REP BY TALUK OFFICE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU -562 106.

¶16

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, REP BY ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶17

SURVEYOR, REP BY LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37299 WP No. 8710 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REVENUE INSPECTOR, THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI, LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106.

¶21

VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI, LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SANPAMGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

[BY SMT. RADHIKA P R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7 (PH)]

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING RESPONDENT NO.1CORPORATION MAY BE DIRECTED TO PAY FULL COMPENSATION TO PETITIONER TO EXTENT OF AFORESAID LAND BEING ACQUIRED TO BUILD TOWER PLATE NO. 250 AND COMPENSATION FOR DRAWING HIGH TENSION TRANSMISSION POWER CABLES-DHAMAPURI SOMANAHALLI D/C QUAD LINE PASSING ACROSS LAND BEARING SY NO 308, SITUATED AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, AS PER THE PROVISION OF INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 AND RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ETC,

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:37299 WP No. 8710 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶33

"1. To the Respondent No. 1 corporation may be directed to pay full compensation to the Petitioner to the extent of the aforesaid land being acquired to build Tower Plate No. 250 and compensation for drawing high tension transmission power cables-Dhamapuri Somanahalli D/C quad line passing across the land bearing Sy No 308, situated at Thammanayakanahalli village, Anekal Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, as per the provision of Indian Telegraph Act, electricity Act, 2003 and Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶34

2. To quash acquisition made by the Respondent No.1 to draw high tension transmission power cables - Dharmapuri Somanahalli D/C quad line passing across the land bearing Sy No 308, situated at Thammanayakanahalli village, Anekal Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, measuring 2 Acres.

¶35

3. To quash the vide order dated 15.02.2025 at Annexure-S2 and reply notice dated 11.01.2025 at Annexure-R and etc.,"

¶36

Sri Shashikumar G., learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner is owner of 2 Acres of land in Sy.no.308 of Thammanayakanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, over which respondent no.1 had drawn Dharmapuri Somanahalli D/C Quad Overhead Transmission Lines in year 2018. It was submitted, at that time, respondent no.1 had paid compensation only for damages to standing crops and not towards diminution of value of land, which was required to be

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:37299 WP No. 8710 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

paid as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Claiming same, petitioner had filed representations to respondent no.7 as per Annexures-N dated 13.09.2023, N1 and N2 dated 07.10.2023, N3 and N4 dated 11.12.2023, N7 and N8 dated 05.02.2024 and legal notice dated 14.02.2024 at Annexure-N9.

¶41

It was submitted, in response notice was issued on 22.03.2024 by respondent no.7 to respondent no.2-Tahsildar. It was submitted, on 11.01.2025, respondent no.1 addressed correspondence as per Annexure-R to respondent no.7-Deputy Commissioner that insofar as land bearing Sy.no.185, 274, 279/1, 279/2, 279/3, 279/4, 275, 278, 280 of Thammanayakanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, over which transmission lines were drawn, persons in occupation were found to be different than names mentioned in Record of Rights (RoR) and seeking for survey to identify correct owners. In pursuance of same, respondent no.7-Deputy Commissioner under order at Annexure-S2 had directed for conduct of joint survey. It was submitted, when there was no dispute about petitioner being owner of land and respondent no.1 had paid

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:37299 WP No. 8710 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

compensation at time of drawing of transmission lines, there was no need for joint survey when only petitioner had claimed for payment of compensation for damages towards diminution of value of land. For having ordered re-survey without any justification, order passed by Deputy Commissioner was also challenged. It was submitted, under above circumstances, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court as relief for petitioner was deferred.

¶46

In response, learned AGA for respondents no.2 to 7 opposing writ petition, submitted that on noticing discrepancies in revenue records, which was due to reassignment of survey numbers, joint survey was ordered. Respondent no.1 had filed statement of objections urging various contentions disputing petitioner's claim for compensation in respect of Sy.no.308 of Thammanayakanahalli village. Various records and orders passed by this Court in WA no.1203/2022 are filed.

¶47

In reply, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent no.1 was seeking to rely upon correspondence, survey reports and orders passed by respondent-authorities, to create confusion about petitioner's claim for compensation in

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:37299 WP No. 8710 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

respect of petitioner's land used by respondent no.1 for laying Overhead Transmission Lines. Same had resulted in denial of compensation to petitioner. Therefore, petitioner was before this Court.

¶52

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.

¶53

From above, it is seen that petitioner is mainly seeking direction to respondents to pay compensation to petitioner for utilization of his land for drawing up of Overhead Transmission Lines. If it is so, appropriate way for same is by filing petition under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short). Merely on ground that there are certain revenue proceedings initiated at instance of respondent no.1, survey conducted or orders passed in pursuance thereof had create confusion would not come in way of petitioner maintaining claim for compensation. Petitioner would require to establish his claim before jurisdictional District Court which would be competent to adjudicate claims/contentions of petitioner and rival contentions of respondent no.1 after recording of evidence. Even if any order or survey report by any of respondents were to affect petitioner, there would be

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:37299 WP No. 8710 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

efficacious remedy of appeal under Sections 49 and 50 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. On said ground also, this Court need not go into disputed question of fact.

¶58

It is settled that writ petition seeking to decide disputed question of fact cannot be entertained. Since present writ petition involves disputed question of fact as well as fact that petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy of pursuing for compensation under Section 16 (3) of Act, I refuse to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty as above.

¶59

All contentions of both parties are kept open to be adjudicated before appropriate forum. If application is filed before jurisdictional District Court under Section 16 (3) of Act within period of four weeks, petitioner would be entitled for benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963.

¶60

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶61

AV

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Chennarayappa v. Deputy General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennarayappa v. Deputy General Manager

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

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Smt. Kempalakshmamma

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) Vs Sri T. T. Lakshmaiah

The Executive Engineer Vs G. T. Thimmareddy @ G. T. Thippareddy @ Thippareddy

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs Smt M. Nagalakshmi

Fayaz Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

Emmanuel Vincent D Sa Vs Union of India