Disposed

M/S Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Sri.Muniraju

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2026WA/939/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KPTCL challenged the Single Judge's order restoring revenue entries of grantees over land granted to it for a substation. The Division Bench found the Deputy Commissioner had not followed due procedure before granting land already granted in 1978 to others, and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to decide after notice, with status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to Deputy Commissioner to decide after notice to grantees; acquisition with compensation if grants not violated; status quo maintained.

M/S Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)

¶11

IN WA No. 939/2025

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, KAUVERY BHAVAN, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR), MR. VIJAY B.P.

¶14

(BY SRI. SRI RANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI.MUNIRAJU, S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶25

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2 - R4; SRI.A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.32726/2013, AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

¶29

IN WA NO. 909/2025

¶30

BETWEEN:

¶31

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR (ADMIN AND HR), MR. VIJAY B P.

¶32

...APPELLANT

¶33

(BY SRI. SRI.RANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE)

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

AND:

¶37

SRI.LAVA RAJ @ CHOWRAPPA, S/O LATE ANTHONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT BETTA DASANAPURA GATE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶38

SMT. VAZEER BI, W/O LATE BASHU SAB, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, RESIDING AT BETTA DASANAPURA, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶39

SRI. Y. KRISHNAPPA, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶40

SRI. SUBBAIAH, S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT MYLASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶41

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶42

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT,

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶47

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶48

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶49

THE TALUK SURVEYOR, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶50

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R5, R6, R7, R8 , R9; SRI.RAMESH ADITHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1- R4; SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R10)

¶53

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-31725/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶54

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

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶56

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶59

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶60

The present appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 28.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32726/2013 (KLR-LG) and W.P.No.31752/2016 (KLR-LG).

¶61

The brief facts of the case are summarized as under:

¶62

The appellant is a State Government Public Sector Undertaking and operates as the licensee under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant is entrusted with the responsibility of transmitting power all over the State of Karnataka and construction and maintenance of sub-stations and lines of 66KV and

¶63

above. As the demand for electricity is ever rising in Bengaluru because of IT hubs and other industries having been set up in and around Bengaluru City, substations of 400/220 KV at Hoody and Somanahalli were

¶64

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

found not sufficient to look after the ever rising demand of

¶67

electricity, the appellant therefore, proposed to set up sub-stations in and around Electronic City to cater the increasing demand of the power/electricity. In the process

¶68

of setting up new sub-stations, the appellant decided to set up sub-station of 400/220 KV capacity at Mylasandra, being in the vicinity of Electronic City. The appellant submitted a request to the Government for the required land for setting up of three sub-stations. The State Government issued a letter dated 12.03.2012 to grant the subject land to appellant upon deposit of 50% of the market value and such other fees as may be applicable.

¶69

The appellant-Corporation was directed to make payment of Rs.7,62,84,291/- and Rs.2,97,58,555/- for the lands allotted by the Government at Bettadasapura and Mylasandra respectively. The aforesaid amount was paid

¶70

by the appellant on 26.03.2012. After the appellant paid around 11 and 1/2 crores to the Government being the 50% of the value of the land which was granted in favour

¶71

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

of the appellant i.e., land measuring 27 acres 26 guntas comprising of 9 acres and 11 guntas in Sy.No.27 of Bettadasapura Village and 9 acres 15 guntas in the adjacent land in Mylasandra of Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk . The appellant had constructed the substation. Out of total extent of 27 acres 26 guntas of land allotted to the appellant, the physical possession of land measuring to an extent of 9 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.136 in Mylasandra was delivered to the appellant vide "Subhadra letter" dated 23.07.2012 issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The mutation also took place in respect of 9 acres 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.136 of Mylasandra Village in favour of the appellant and according to the appellant, physical possession was delivered to it. Thereafter, the State Government initiated proceeding under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1882 bearing No.RRT (S)CR 84/2012-13 against one Pillappa and Sri. Muniraju, respondent No.1 who were claiming 4 acres and 01 acre of land respectively in the said Sy.No.136 of Mylasandra

¶74

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Village. After notices were served and parties having been heard, Deputy Commissioner - respondent No.3 vide order dated 28.06.2013 directed the Tahsildar to take

¶77

possession of the land.

¶78

The said order dated 28.06.2013 was challenged by Pillappa in W.P.No.32162/2013, Muniraju in W.P.No.32726/2013 and four others in W.P.No.31725/2016 who are appellants in WA

¶79

No.909/2025 respectively. Sy.No.27 of Bettadasapura

¶80

was allotted in favour of the Bangalore Development Authority in respect of 19 acres 19 guntas was allotted in the year 2007 and 2 acres 7 guntas was also allotted further. Out of this 19 acres 19 guntas and 2 acres 7 guntas, the State Government was pleased to grant 18 acres 11 guntas in favour of the appellant, to which BDA had given consent. There was a stay order operating in respect of 01 acre of land in Sy.No.27, therefore, the possession delivered to the appellant was to an extent of 17 acres 11 guntas. The land was mutated in favour of

¶81

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

the BDA and later on, the Government had ordered for the

¶84

grant of 18 acres 11 guntas in favour of the appellant. The said orders have never been challenged. After lapse of more than 8 years, since the grant was made in favour of the appellant and sub-station having been constructed, the writ petitions came to be filed challenging the grant made in favour of the appellant in respect of the aforesaid land in 2021. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 28.04.2025 set aside the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and directed the revenue authorities to restore the names of the respondents. The said judgment and order is under challenge in these appeals.

¶85

Learned Single Judge after perusing the original records having been produced by the learned AGA noted that the O.M. dated 15.11.1978, indicating that the decision had been taken to grant the land in favour of five persons to an extent of 1 acre each as per the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶86

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

The learned Single Judge found that the land

¶89

which was allotted to the appellant was already granted in favour of the five persons including the respondents.

¶90

As the lands were already granted in favour of the five persons as indicated above, the grant in respect of the petitioners who were before the Writ Court, the order was passed insofar as the land granted to the petitioners was concerned and a direction was issued to the revenue authorities to mutate the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners and sale deeds would be executed in their favour on the basis of grant orders. The original record would indicate that the one acre land to each of the five persons was granted in Sy.No.27 of Bettadasanapura Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was a gomal land. If the Deputy Commissioner wanted to allot the land in favour of the appellant, he ought to have cancelled the grant by following proper proceeding. We do not find anything on record to suggest that the Deputy

¶91

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

Commissioner had issued notice to the petitioner before making grant in favour of the appellant in respect of the said land. If the Deputy Commissioner is of the view that the terms and conditions of the grant had been violated, and if the land is required for public purpose, he needs to take/conduct appropriate proceedings under the law for cancellation of the grants. The condition of grant itself provides that the land was granted for cultivation and the land was to be brought within three years from the date of grant for cultivation and other terms and conditions are mentioned in the grant order. If there is violation of any terms and conditions of grant, necessary proceedings may be initiated.

¶94

We therefore, dispose of these appeals and give direction to the Deputy Commissioner to issue notice to the grantees or successors-in-interest for taking appropriate steps for adjudication of the rights and claims of the parties before cancelling the grant made in their

¶95

favour way back in 1978. We find that the Deputy

¶96

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

Commissioner has not followed the proper

¶99

procedure/examined records before granting the land in favour of the appellant.

¶100

There can be no doubt that the land is required

¶101

for the public purpose, as much as, the sub-station has been already set up and much of the land has been utilized for constructing sub-station and further land may be required by the appellant to use. We therefore, dispose of these two writ appeals and remit the matter back to the

¶102

file of the Deputy Commissioner for taking decision in accordance with law and as directed above.

¶103

If there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the grant, or under the appropriate provisions, the land has to be acquired and the reasonable compensation has to be awarded to the grantee.

¶104

We direct the respondents and appellant to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 08.05.2026 and seek

¶105

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:20882-DB WA No. 939 of 2025 C/W WA No. 909 of 2025

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

disposal of the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months thereof,

¶108

after hearing all the parties.

¶109

We make it clear that status quo in respect of the property as well as nature of `the land shall be maintained.

¶110

Original record is returned to the learned AGA.

¶111

We record the submission of the learned counsel for

¶112

the respondents that they have no opposition for acquisition of their lands provided, the proper procedure is followed.

¶113

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶114

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶115

Bsv

¶116

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

M/S Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Sri.Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. Sri.Muniraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Arathi Krishna Vs Sri.R.Raghu

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Syed Mastan

Smt. Govindamma Vs State of Karnataka

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Muddamma

The Regional Pf Commissioner Vs M/s. Mangalore Minerals (P) Ltd.

M/S Anuradha Property and Townships Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka