Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli vs The Executive Engineer (Elec) on 5 August, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
WP No. 104615 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 104615 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MOHAN S/O. ANNAPPA SHANALLI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SANTHEPETE ROAD, BANAVASI,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR-581318.
2. SRI. MUNAVAR KHAN S/O. INAYAT KHAN KHAZI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KHAZI GALLI, BANAVASI,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST:KARWAR-581318.
3. SRI. VINAYAK S/O. SUBRAYA REVANKAR,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MAHAVEER ONI, BANAVASI,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST:KARWAR-581318.
4. SRI. SAINATH S/O. DATTATREY SHANALLI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MARKET ROAD, BANAVASI,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST:KARWAR-581318.
...PETITIONERS
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
AND:
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
SUB-DIV, KPTCL, SIRSI,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581318.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SIRSI SUB DIVISION, SIRSI,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581318.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR C/R1;
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
WP No. 104615 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT
BEARING 605/KaNiEle(vi)/BraKaVi/U.K/SaKaNiEm(Ka)2024-25/190-
96 DATED 20/05/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-M ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 AS NULL AND VOID; TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO DEVIATE THE LINE OF LAYING
HEAVY ELECTRIC LINE FROM THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS
BEARING R.S. NO. 159/1A, 159/1B, 157/1 AND 159/3 OF KADAGOD
VILLAGE, SIRSI TALUK.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
also the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. In this writ petition, a prayer is to issue writ of
certiorari quashing Annexure-M issued by respondent
No.1, as the same is null and void and to issue a
direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to deviate the
line of laying heavy electric line from the lands of the
petitioners bearing R.S.No.159/1A, 159/1B, 157/1
and 159/3 of Kadagod village, Sirsi Taluk and pass
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
such other order as deems fit in the circumstances of
the case.
3. The main contention of the petitioners before this
Court is that;
3.1. The respondent No.1 issued a notification in
Vijay Karnataka daily Kannada Newspaper,
calling upon objections from the public
regarding establishment of 1X10 M.V.A,
110/11K.V Electric Sub-division station at
Banavasi. In the process of such establishment,
the electric line will be passing through the
villages, Jade, Hanaji, Tumarikoppa,
Varadikoppa, Jagatu, Kalagere, Jigarikoppa,
Jademadpur, Halekoppa Madurvalli, Kadagodu,
Banavasi.
3.2. That, on 01.12.2022. respondent No.2 called a
meeting of affected land owners for fixing of
the compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
3.3. That on 10.12.2022, petitioners filed objections
stating that the proposed line may kindly be
deviated through the Government land,
otherwise their entire land becomes waste.
Since proposed line passes through the lands of
the petitioners and huge towers are to be
erected in the middle of the lands and the
Government land bearing Survey No.165
measuring 79 Acres 34 Guntas is existing
abutting to the lands of the petitioners.
3.4. The respondent No.1 has issued the impugned
endorsements on 16.12.2022. The petitioners
have approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition No.100059/2023 and the same was
allowed and a direction was given to consider
the representations and pass appropriate
orders.
3.5. Thereafter an order has been passed on
20.05.2024 and an endorsement was issued
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
indicating that no deviation of the work will be
conducted. Hence the petitioners have filed the
present petition before this Court.
4. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners
is that, when the other land exists, that is the land of
R.S.No.165 of Kadagod Village, measuring 79 Acres
34 Guntas, which is classified as 'jungle' which is a
Government land and there are no trees as exists in
the forest, it can be easily utilized for laying the
poles. In fact it shorts the distance and economically
feasible and authorities can save the compensation
amount also. That apart, out of said land 2 Acres 19
Guntas in R.S.No.164 of Kadagod is given to
Government Pre-University College. So there exists
no forest as contended by the respondents. The
respondents also not considering the fact that there
exists 4A of open land lying parallel to the lands of
the petitioners and it is used for storing the waste
from the local bodies. There is no obstacle for using
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
the said land for laying the high tension wire. On
these grounds he prayed that the impugned order is
required to be quashed. In spite of the order passed
by this Court earlier in Writ Petition
No.100059/2023, quashing of the endorsements, the
respondents not considered the same and hence it
requires interference.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that;
5.1. The petitioners cannot direct the respondents to
lay line according to their convenience. The
counsel brought to the notice of this Court the
order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court sitting at Kalaburgi Bench in Writ Petition
No.200910/2024 (Basappa and others Vs.
State of Karnataka and Others) and brought
the attention of this Court to the discussion
made in paragraphs No.59 and 63 of the said
judgment, wherein similar contention was taken
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
and the same was ruled out by the Coordinate
Bench and categorically held in paragraph
No.59 that, when the request of the petitioners
has been considered by the District Magistrate
and there is also shifting of tower by 17 meters
of the position of the tower which would suffice
the need of the petitioners. The Counsel also
would contend that, when the petitioners have
requested not to lay the line on the burial area,
the same has been considered. The counsel
also would contend that, in paragraph No.63 of
the judgment, it is held that, it is a settled
principle of law and requires no emphasis that
when larger public interest is involved, private
interest of an individual should yield to the
larger public interest.
5.2. The counsel also brought the notice of this
Court to the order passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
No.100428/2022 (Smt.Laxmibai and Others
Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others),
wherein a discussion was made with regard to
approach to the Deputy Commissioner for any
redressal and the same has not been made and
also the Deputy Commissioner has not been
made as party in this petition.
5.3. The counsel also relies upon the judgment
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.102481/2022 (Sukumar and
Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and
Others) and brought to the notice of this Court
paragraph No.7 of the said judgment, wherein
a discussion was made with regard to the
endorsement issued by the concerned
department and the petitioners are reserved
liberty to file objections or representations
before Deputy Commissioner within two weeks;
the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkote -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
respondent No.4 therein, was directed to
consider petitioners' objections and pass
suitable orders within one month; and until
then respondents No.2 and 3 are directed not
proceed with the work.
5.4. The counsel would also submit that Rule
7(4)(e) of the Forest (Conservation) Rules,
2003, also bars getting permission to erect
electric line in the land of the forest land.
6. Having considered the grounds urged in the petition
as well as the contention of the respondents, and
also having perused the impugned order at
Annexure-M, no doubt earlier also this Court has
given direction in W.P.No.100059/2023 quashing the
earlier endorsements and also issued a writ of
mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to
consider the objections of the petitioners dated
10.12.2022 at Annexures - G and G1 and reschedule
the project. In terms of the same, consideration was
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
made by the respondents vide order dated
20.05.2024, wherein an observation is made that
already work is in progress and 66% of work was
completed out of 100% of work and if any line is
changed, it would cost more amount and the same is
not possible and also reason is given that, if the new
line is laid, again the farmers will object the same;
also considering Sections 10, 11 and 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, an observation is made that
there is no need to take permission of the land
owners and if any other alternative line is possible
and only possibility is in the forest land, it is highly
difficult to get permission from the Forest
Department and hence they cannot object the same.
7. Having perused the reasons assigned by the
respondents and taking into the consideration the
earlier directions also, a direction was given to
consider the request and accordingly they considered
the request, but came to the conclusion that already
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
66% of the work was completed out of 100% and
also the land available very next to the property of
the petitioners is a Forest land. The counsel
appearing to the petitioners also brought to the
notice of this Court that the other area belonging to
the general public to an extent of four acres is also
available and they can change the line. Counsel
appearing for the respondents also brought to the
notice of this Court Rule 7(4)(e) of the Forest
(Conversation) Rules, 2003, regarding granting any
permission in respect of forest land and there is a
bar.
8. Taking note of the said submission as well as
Annexure-M, a specific observation is made that
already 66% of work has been carried out and now it
is not possible to shift the line, when such reasoning
is given and also immediate to the property of the
petitioner, only forest land is available and for other
lands again the owners will object for the same.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
When such being the case, having considered
Sections 10, 11 and 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act,
1885 and also the same has been discussed by the
Coordinate Bench of the Kalaburagi Bench, as well as
in the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.100428/2022 and also another order passed by
this Court in W.P.No.102481/2022, as a matter of
right the petitioners are not having any right to
question the same. However, the petitioners can
also approach the Deputy Commissioner in view of
the observations made by this Court as discussed
above, since the very contention of the respondents
is also that the Deputy Commissioner has not been
made as party and he has to consider the
representations of the petitioners. In view of the
submission of the petitioners' counsel also that the
other land of 04 Acres is available, if the same is
feasible, they can approach the Deputy
Commissioner for shifting of the line.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11007
9. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of.
The petitioners are given liberty to approach the
Deputy Commissioner within a period of two weeks
from today and till the decision is taken by the
Deputy Commissioner, respondents are directed not
to take any precipitate action in respect of the
petitioners, for a period of one month, from the date
of two weeks of representation made to the Deputy
Commissioner, as directed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
gab
CT-MCK
