Smt. B.M. Rukmanamma Vs State of Kanrataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. B.M. Rukmanamma Vs State of Kanrataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petition was dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out her remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.

Issue for consideration

Whether the high tension transmission pole No.33 is located in the petitioner's land Survey No.182 or in respondent No.5's land Survey No.184, and whether respondent No.5 fraudulently received the compensation. +1 more

Court's answer

The contention that the pole is situated in the petitioner's land rather than respondent No.5's land raises serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the exact location of the transmission pole and the survey number in which it is situated, requiring factual adjudication including examination of survey records, technical verification and appreciation of evidence.

Ratio / Principle

Disputed questions of title or location of land cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly where determination requires appreciation of evidence and factual enquiry; the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court or appropriate forum for adjudication of her claim.

Key takeaways

In the absence of any clear material demonstrating illegality in the impugned endorsement, and in view of the disputed factual issues involved, the Court found no ground to exercise its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.ratio¶45
The dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from working out her remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, if so advised.ratio¶46-47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-KEB) No. 12250 of 2023, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (K.S. Hemalekha, J.), decided 10.03.2026 - The petitioner, owner (by devolution from her mother) of lands bearing Survey Nos.177, 181 and 182 of Kalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, sought quashing of the endorsement dated 28.07.2022 (Ref. No. LAQ/CR/257-2022-23, Annexure-L) issued by respondent No.4 (Executive Engineer, Electricity, KPTCL), which rejected her request for compensation for high tension transmission pole No.33 on the ground that compensation towards the transmission line project had already been determined and disbursed (total stated as Rs. 25,51,761.45 in the Court's reading; Rs. 25,57,761.45 in the prayer), allegedly received by respondent No.5 (since deceased, represented by LRs 5A-5C) by representing the pole to be situated in his Survey No.184. Held: (i) the dispute over the exact location of the pole and the survey number raises serious disputed questions of fact requiring examination of survey records, technical verification and appreciation of evidence; (ii) disputed questions of title or location of land cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where appreciation of evidence and factual enquiry is required; (iii) no clear material demonstrating illegality in the endorsement was shown - writ jurisdiction declined and the petition dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue her remedies before the competent civil Court or appropriate forum.

NC: 2026:KHC:14428 WP No. 12250 of 2023

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 12250 OF 2023 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

SMT. B.M. RUKMANAMMA W/O K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.129, MIG, 2^ND STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

&PETITIONER

(BY SMT. NAVYASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KANRATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 3 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA, PIN CODE 3 562 159.

THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, 1^ST FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

THE EXEUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14428 WP No. 12250 of 2023

HC-KAR

ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU 3 560 009.

SRI D.M. RANGE GOWDA S/O LATE MOTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

5A. SRI R. RAKASH S/O LATE T.M. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.339, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS ROAD, RANGANATHAPURA, KAMAKSHI PALYA, BANGALORE 3 560 079.

5B. SRI R. CHANDRA MOHAN S/O LATE T.M. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.66/1 <SRIRANGA MURUTHI HARDWAR= MAGADI MAIN ROAD, RANGANATHAPURA, KAMAKSHI PALYA, BANGALORE - 560 079.

5C. SMT. R. PRABHA

D/O LATE T.M. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.21, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, SAI MANDIR BACKSIDE, RANGANATHAPURA, KAMAKSHI PALYA, BANGLAORE 3 560 079.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 (A TO C))

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14428 WP No. 12250 of 2023

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY AWARDING A COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS. 25,57,761.45 VIDE REFERENCE NO. LAQ/CR/257-2022-23 ISSUED BY R4 DATED 28.07.2022 IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-L AND ISSUE DIRECTION DIRECTING THE R5 TO DEPOSIT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT WITH INTEREST, WHICH WRONGLY RECEIVED BY HIM BY PLAYING FRAUD AND FURTHER ORDER TO PAY THE SAID COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the

endorsement dated 28.07.2022 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the request of the petitioner for payment of compensation in respect of installation of high tension transmission pole No.33 was rejected on the ground that the compensation amount has already been disbursed.

The case of the petitioner is that the transmission pole and line passed through her lands bearing Survey Nos.177, 181 and 182 of Kalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, which originally belonged to her mother and thereafter devolved upon the petitioner.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14428 WP No. 12250 of 2023

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.5 has fraudulently claimed compensation by representing that pole is situated in his land Survey No.184. Though according to the petitioner, the pole is located in Survey No.182 belonging to her.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

The endorsement produced at Annexure-L discloses that compensation towards the transmission line project has already been determined and disbursed. The total amount being `25,51,761.45/- and therefore the petitioner's request for payment of compensation has been rejected. The entire grievance of the petitioner is premised on the assertion that the pole is situated in her land and not in the land of respondent No.5. Such a contention essentially raises serious disputed questions of fact with regard to the exact location of the transmission pole and survey number, in which it is situated. Determination of such questions, necessarily requires factual adjudication,

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14428 WP No. 12250 of 2023

HC-KAR

including examination of survey records, technical verification and appreciation of evidence.

It is well settled, that disputed questions of title or location of land cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Particularly, when the determination would require appreciation of evidence and factual enquiry. In such circumstances, the proper remedy available to the petitioner would be to approach the competent civil Court or appropriate forum for adjudication of her claim.

In the absence of any clear material demonstrating illegality in the impugned endorsement and in view of the disputed factual issues involved, this Court does not find any ground to exercise its writ's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

However, it is made clear that the dismissal of

the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from working out her remedies in accordance with law before

NC: 2026:KHC:14428 WP No. 12250 of 2023

6 -

HC-KAR

the appropriate forum, if so advised, in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

_____________________

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

AT

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53