Eranna M Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Eranna M Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec) — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted in the writ petition; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority/forum, seek re-determination of compensation in accordance with law and raise all contentions available, including reliance on the Central Guidelines.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking re-determination of compensation payable for land affected by the transmission line (and quashing of the Official Memorandum dated 01/07/2024) is maintainable under Article 226, given that it involves disputed questions relating to assessment of market value, application of statutory guidelines and factual determination by a competent authority, and an alternative remedy is available.

Court's answer

The writ petition as framed seeks re-determination of compensation, which is not ordinarily amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ratio / Principle

The issue raised requires adjudication by the appropriate authority/forum competent to determine compensation and factual disputes.

Key takeaways

The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available in law and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.ratio¶51
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority/forum, seek re-determination of compensation in accordance with law and raise all contentions available, including reliance on the Central Guidelines.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.4036 of 2026 (GM-KEB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by Eranna M sought quashing of the Official Memorandum No.CYS10/P.D.Kote/2024-25 dated 01/07/2024 (Annexure-E) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, and re-determination of compensation for land affected by a transmission line in terms of the Central Guidelines dated 14.06.2024 (200% of market value for tower base area; 30%/45%/60% for RoW corridor by location classification) and constitution of a Market Rate Committee per Clause 3 of the Supplementary Guidelines. Held (K.S. Hemalekha, J.): the relief sought is essentially adjudication of compensation and determination of market value involving disputed questions - assessment of market value, application of statutory guidelines and factual determination by a competent authority; re-determination of compensation is not ordinarily amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 and requires adjudication by the appropriate authority/forum competent to determine compensation and factual disputes. The petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority/forum, seek re-determination of compensation in accordance with law and raise all contentions available, including reliance on the Central Guidelines.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15543 WP No. 4036 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.4036 OF 2026 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

ERANNA .M S/O MALLAPPA .G AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, ELUKOTI NILAYA, IKKANURU, AT POST HIRIYUR TALUK, IKKANURU, CHITRADURGA-577557.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI AKSHAY RAMACHANDRA HUDDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.), MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION-3, KPTCL, JCR CIRCLE, 3^RD CROSS (WEST), CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA-577501.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CHITRADURGA, KARNATAKA-577501.

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R-2)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15543 WP No. 4036 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 01/07/2024 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

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 in this petition is seeking for the following prayers:

“A. Issue a "Writ of Certiorari" or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the Official Memorandum bearing No.CYS10/P.D.Kote/2024-25 dated 01/07/2024 at Annexure-E issued by Respondent No.2.

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents to:

1. Re-determine the compensation in strict compliance with the Central Guidelines dated 14.06.2024 at Annexure-F.

2. Constitute a Market Rate Committee (MRC) as per Clause 3 of the Supplementary Guidelines

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15543 WP No. 4036 of 2026

HC-KAR

at Annexure F1, with petitioner's representation.

3. Determine the prevailing market value of the affected lands through the MRC using independent valuers.

4. Calculate and pay compensation as follows:

Tower Base Area: 200% of the determined market value per sq.m.

RoW Corridor: 30%/45%/60% of the determined market value per acre based on location classification.

C. Grant such other and further relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, including costs.”

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the core grievance of the petitioner pertains to re-determination of compensation payable for the land effected by the transmission line.

The relief sought is essentially in the nature of:

i. adjudication of compensation and

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15543 WP No. 4036 of 2026

HC-KAR

ii. determination of market value with statutory guidelines. Such issue involve disputed questions relating to :

a. assessment of market value;

b. application of statutory guidelines and

c. factual determination by competent authority.

This Court is of the considered view that the writ

petition as framed seeks re-determination of

compensation, which is not ordinarily amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issue raised requires adjudication by the appropriate authority/ forum, competent to determine compensation and factual disputes.

The petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy available in law and the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. However, considering the grievance of the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority/ forum,

NC: 2026:KHC:15543 WP No. 4036 of 2026

5 -

HC-KAR

seek re-determination of compensation in accordance with

law and raise all contentions available, including reliance on Central Guidelines. Accordingly, the writ petition stands

disposed of with liberty as stated above.

Sd/-

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75