Karnataka High Court
Mr.Nagarajappa vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8243 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 18796 OF 2022(GM-KEB)
IN W.P. No.8243/2022
BETWEEN:
1. PARAMESHWARAPPA B Y
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA B Y
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A 6, BEERAGONDANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
2. DHANJAYA G S
S/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A 6, BEERAGONDANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
3. YASHODAMMA
Digitally signed by W/O ESWARAPPA
LEELAVATHI S R AGED 68 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/A 6, BEERAGONDANAHALLI
COURT OF DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL APPAERING FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY COMMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTIRCT - 577 224.
2. SUB DIVISIONAL COMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 224.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HONNALI TLAUK
DAVANAGERE 577 127.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATKAA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD NO.4
BHADRA CANAL SUB DIVISION
SASVEHALLI 577 224.
5. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
TRANSMISSION (W AND M)
CIRCLE, K.P.T.C.L, GROUND FLOOR
HADADI RADO,
DAVANGER - 577 224.
6. M/S G.V.P.R ENGINEERS LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING REGD OFFICE AT 8-2-293/82/A
PLOT NO. 739-A, ROAD NO.37
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 033.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. PRASHANTH.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-5
SRI. PRADEEP GOANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
THIS W. P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROPOSED PLAN
PREPARED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN W.P. No.18796/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
INOORU SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
2. MR.S.K. NAGESH
S/O S. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A KALESHWAR BEEDI SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
3. MR. HALESHAPPA
S/O SANNATIMMAPPA
AGED AOBUT 64 YEARS
INOORU SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
4. MR. H.N. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O H.N. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 69/B, INOORU SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
5. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJAYYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
HANUMANHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
6. MR. PATEL SAB
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SUBHAN SAB
R/A MAVINAKOTE
THANDA MAVINAKOTE
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
7. MRS. SHARADAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O KARIBASURU
BENAKANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
8. MR. H.K. VASAVARAJAPPA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKABASURU
BENAHAKAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
9. GOVINDANAIKA
S/O KALANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
R/AT CHIKKABASURU TANDA
BENAKANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
10. MR. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O RANGAPPA
R/AT CHIKKABASURU
BENAKANAHALLI,
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
11. MRS. SARVAMANGALA
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED A72 YEARS
R/A DAVANAGERE CHIKKABASURU
BENAKANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
12. MR. DANEDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
R/A CHIKKABASURU BENAHAKANHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
13. MRS. PARVATI BAI
W/O VENKATESHANAIK
R/A DAVANAGERE CHIKKABASURU TANDA
BENAKANAHALLI - 577 224.
14. MR. NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O BASAPPA
BEERAGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
15. MRS. BASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O BASAPPA
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
16. MR. B.H. RUDRESH
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
17. MR. B.G. BASANAGOUDA
S/O KARIBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
18. B.Y.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O BASAVARAJAYYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
19. GOWRAMMA
W/O TIPPALLI BASAPPA
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
20. S. PARAMASHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
21. G.C. MANJUNATH
S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
22. G.B. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O BASAVANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
23. MR. G.E. HALESHAPPA
S/O ESHWARAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
UJJANIPURA
BEERAGONDAHALLI POST
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL APPAERING FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY COMMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTIRCT - 577 224.
2. SUB DIVISIONAL COMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 224.
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HONNALI TLAUK
DAVANAGERE - 577 127.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATKAA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD NO.4
BHADRA CANAL SUB DIVISION
SASVEHALLI - 577 224.
5. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
TRANSMISSION (W AND M)
CIRCLE, K.P.T.C.L, GROUND FLOOR
HADADI RADO, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
6. M/S G.V.P.R ENGINEERS LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING REGD OFFICE AT 8-2-293/82/A
PLOT NO. 739-A, ROAD NO.37
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 033.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4
SRI. PRASHANTH.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-6
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS W. P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROPOSED PLAN
PREPARED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
ORDER
Since common questions of law and fact arise for
consideration in both the petitions, they are taken up together for
disposal.
2. In both the petitions, petitioners seek quashing of the
proposed plan prepared by 4th respondent, AEE-KNNL and the
publication dated 03.05.2021 issued by 2nd respondent, Sub-
Divisional Commissioner and the order dated 11.01.2021 passed
by the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner. During the
pendency of the petition, applications seeking amendment of the
petitions by laying a challenge to the order dated 07.02.2022
passed by the 1st respondent were filed by the petitioners, which
were taken up for consideration along with main petitions.
3. The petitioners claimed to be the land owners of the
subject land, over which, the respondents sought to erect electric
towers and lay overhead electrical lines pursuant to the subject
drinking water project viz., "Sasvehalli KVNL Lift Irrigation 66/11 KV
S/S in Honnali Taluk and Davanagere District" to increase the
existing 66 KV to 220/66 KV on self execution basis. Petitioners
contend that the plan in relation to the Project followed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
paper publication dated 03.05.2021 and culminating in the
impugned orders dated 11.10.2021 and 07.02.2022 merely
granting compensation in favour of the petitioners and refusing to
consider the objections of the petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and
violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be
quashed. The petitioners have urged various grounds in support of
their claim.
4. The respondents have opposed the petitions and
contended that the subject drinking water project was launched
keeping in mind the water scarcity in the locality and all statutory
approvals and procedures have been complied with and followed
by the respondents, who have provided sufficient and reasonable
opportunity to the petitioners including considering their request for
enhancement of compensation of the amounts awarded in the
order dated 11.10.2021 which have been substantially increased in
the subsequent order dated 07.02.2022 in favour of all the land
owners / farmers including the petitioners and as such, there is no
merit in the petitions and that the same are liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners and learned Advocate General for the respondents -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
State and the learned counsel for remaining respondents and
perused the material on record.
6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in
the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners made the following
submissions:-
(i) The respondents are proceeding to draw overhead
electric lines without obtaining prior approval of the appropriate
Government as required under Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act,
2003 (for short 'the said Act of 2003') and the impugned orders
arising out of the subject project deserve to be quashed;
(ii) The appropriate Government has to frame Rules as
required under Section 67(2) of the said Act of 2003 and since
Rules have not been framed, Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 and Rules made thereunder would continue to
have effect as contemplated under Section 185(2)(b) of the said
Act of 2003. It was submitted that the procedure prescribed under
the provisions of the said Act of 1910 has not been followed in the
instant case, which would vitiate the impugned orders.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
(iii) Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short
'the said Act of 1885') mandates that if there is resistance or
obstruction to putting up overhead lines and erecting towers, the 1st
respondent has to provide an opportunity to the petitioners and
hear them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It
was submitted that since the petitioners objected to the project over
their lands, both orally and in writing, an opportunity ought to have
been provided to the petitioners and failure to do so by the
respondents vitiates the impugned orders.
(iv) Before proceeding to erect towers and draw overhead
lines, it was necessary to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC)
from the petitioners / land owners and on this ground also, the
impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
(v) Both the orders dated 11.10.2021 and 07.02.2022 are
orders under Section 16(3) of the said Act of 1885 and not under
Section 16(1) of the said Act and as such, since the respondents
have not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 16(1),
the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
(vi) Both the impugned orders are violative of principles of
natural justice since the objections of the petitioners were not
considered and no opportunity was provided to them and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on this
ground also.
In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
1. Thirthesh A.S. vs. The Under Secretary to the
Government of Karnataka Department of Power
Corporation and others -ILR 2006 KAR 4164;
2. Vivek Brajendra Singh vs. State Government of
Maharashtra -(2012) 4 MAH LJ 625;
3. Birendra Kumar Deorah vs. Assam Electricity Grid
Corporation Ltd., and Ors. - (2020) 1 Gauhati Law
Reports 646;
4. S.Kannappan (died) and others vs. The
Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality, Madras and
others -A IR 2000 MADRAS 56;
5. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs.
Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others -
(2017) 5 SCC 143 and
6. Jaisinh Parshottambhai Patel vs. Essar Power
Transmission Co Ltd., and others. - 2015 SCC Online
Guj 1202.
7. Per contra, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate
General and the learned counsel for the other respondents submit
that the there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to
be rejected. It was submitted that apart from the fact that prior
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
approval under Section 68 of the said Act of 2003 was obtained,
the prescribed procedure has been followed and an opportunity
was provided in favour of the petitioners who restricted their claim
only to compensation and acquiesced to erection of electric towers
and drawing of overhead lines by the respondents and
consequently, the petitioners were estopped from putting forth false
and frivolous contentions in the present petitions. It was submitted
that obtaining of NOC / consent from the petitioners / land owners
was not required as held by the Apex Court in the case of Power
Grid Corporation of India Ltd., vs. Century Textiles and
Industries Ltd., & others -(2017) 5 SCC 143, which has been
followed in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Century Rayon Ltd., vs. IVP Ltd., & others - (2021) 20 SCC
758 and as such, the said contention urged by the petitioners is
liable to be rejected.
7.1 It was submitted that Section 67(2) of the said Act of
2003 was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and
consequently, the question of invoking Section 185(2)(b) of the said
Act of 2003 or the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 would not arise as
contended by the petitioners. It was further submitted that the
petitioners had participated in the meetings and after the first order
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
dated 11.10.2021 was passed granting them compensation, the
petitioners and all other land owners requested the respondents for
higher compensation and pursuant to meeting conducted on
15.01.2022 in the presence of all stake holders including
petitioners, the compensation was enhanced and as such, the
present petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be
dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
9. The material on record discloses that on 11.01.2017, the
appropriate Government - State of Karnataka granted approval for
the subject project including drawing of overhead electric lines as
required under Section 68(1) of the said Act of 2003. In pursuance
of the same, vide communication dated 10.10.2019, the KPTCL
granted approval for conducting a detailed survey for construction
of the proposed 66 KV line in relation to the subject project. On
09.11.2020, the Deputy Commissioner addressed a communication
to the Assistant Commissioner intimating him to notify the land
owners about usage of their lands towards the project, pursuant to
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
which, the impugned paper publication dated 03.05.2021 was
issued by the Assistant Commissioner.
10. On 22.07.2021, proceedings were conducted before the
1st respondent in which all the stake holders including the
petitioners and other land owners were present, in pursuance of
which, the Tahsildar addressed a communication dated 01.09.2021
to the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the value of the
standing crops and trees situated on the subject lands and
pursuant thereto, the Assistant Commissioner addressed a
communication dated 01.10.2021 to the 1st respondent - Deputy
Commissioner in this regard. On 04.10.2021, the Assistant
Commissioner submitted an inspection report pursuant to spot
verification at the request of the petitioners and other land owners.
Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner took note of and considered
the representations, objections, grievances etc., of the land owners
including the petitioners and proceeded to pass the impugned
order dated 11.10.2021 awarding compensation in favour of all
land owners including the petitioners on the basis of the type of
towers and nature of land as can be seen from the impugned order.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
11. Subsequently, the petitioners and all other land owners /
farmers submitted representations stating that the compensation
awarded in the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 was inadequate
and that the same requires enhancement. Accordingly, a meeting
was conducted on 15.01.2022 by the 1st respondent - Deputy
Commissioner in the presence of all the stake holders including the
petitioners and other land owners. In pursuance of the said
meeting, the 1st respondent passed a revised order enhancing /
revising / increasing the compensation payable in favour of the
petitioners and other land owners.
12. The aforesaid facts and circumstances including the
participation of the petitioners and land owners in the proceedings
and meetings before the 1st respondent who considered their claim
for compensation and enhancement of compensation has been
clearly recorded in the impugned orders dated 11.10.2021 and
07.02.2022. In this context, the material on record indicates that
rather than resisting or obstructing the subject project or erecting
electric towers and laying overhead lines, the petitioners and all
other land owners had given their consent in this regard and their
claim was restricted to compensation and enhanced compensation
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
which has been granted in their favour by the respondents. In fact,
during the course of the meeting conducted on 22.07.2021, all the
objections, representations, grievances etc., of the petitioners and
other land owners were addressed by the respondents who
obtained a spot inspection report from the Assistant Commissioner
and Tahsildar, on the basis of which, the impugned order dated
01.10.2021 was passed awarding compensation in their favour.
Subsequent thereto, neither the petitioners nor the other land
owners raised any objections regarding the said order dated
01.10.2021; instead, they participated in the meeting held on
15.01.2022 in which they requested for enhanced compensation
and did not object to the subject project. It is therefore clear that
having acquiesced to the subject project and restricting / limiting
their claim only to compensation and enhanced compensation
which have been awarded in their favour by the respondents, the
petitioners are estopped from challenging the impugned orders and
consequently, the conduct of the petitioners is sufficient to come to
the conclusion that their claim is barred by the principles of
estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver and the present
petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
13. The contention of the petitioners that no prior approval
was obtained from the appropriate Government as required under
Section 68 of the said Act of 2003 is misconceived and untenable;
as stated supra, on 11.01.2017 itself, the State Government
(appropriate Government ) had granted approval to the subject
project, pursuant to which, all other sanctions, approvals etc., were
also issued by the respective respondents and authorities, all of
which, are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the procedure
prescribed under Section 68 of the said Act of 2003 had been
followed by the respondents and as such, the said contention
urged by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
14. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that
since no Rules have been framed under Section 67(2) of the said
Act of 2003, the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were
required to be followed, in the absence of which the entire project
including the impugned orders cannot be sustained is devoid of
merit and liable to be rejected for more than one reason; firstly,
Section 67(2) of the said Act of 2003 is not applicable to the facts
of the instant case since the same do not deal with drawing of
overhead lines which are covered by Section 68 of the said Act of
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
2003; secondly, Section 185(2)(b) of the said Act of 2003 would
also not be applicable, as a consequence of which, the Indian
Electricity Act, 1910 was not applicable to the facts of the case on
hand; thirdly, in the facts of the instant case, all procedural
requirements have been followed and the petitioners having been
notified were heard by the 1st respondent who considered their
grievances along with the other land owners and obtained a spot
inspection report and proceeded to pass the impugned orders.
Under these circumstances, it is clear that even this contention
urged by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
15. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the
resistance and obstruction of the petitioners were not considered
as required under Section 16(1) of the said Act of 1885 is
concerned, as stated supra, the material on record is sufficient to
come to the conclusion that the objections, representations,
grievances etc., of the petitioners and other land owners were
considered by the 1st respondent, who conducted meetings, in
which, all of them participated and after obtaining a spot inspection
report, the 1st respondent passed the impugned orders awarding
enhanced compensation at the instance / request of the petitioners
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
who cannot be heard to complain that the procedure under Section
16(1) of the said Act of 1885 had not been followed. Under these
circumstances, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
16. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners regarding
obtaining of NOC from them is concerned, in the light of the
judgments of the Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation's case
and Century Rayon's case supra, the said contention cannot be
accepted. In fact, in Century Rayon's case, the Apex Court held
as under:-
8. On the aspect of use of the land belonging to a third
party for setting up of the electricity transmission line, we
would refer to the judgment of this Court in Power Grid Corpn.
of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. [Power Grid
Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.,
(2017) 5 SCC 143] wherein a Division Bench of this Court
while examining Section 164 of the Electricity Act had
observed that the appropriate Government may by order in
writing for the purpose of placing of electric lines or electrical
plant for the transmission of electricity necessary for the
proper coordination of works, confer on any public officer,
licensee or any other person engaged in the business of
supplying electricity under the Electricity Act any of the
powers that the telegraph authority possesses under the
Telegraph Act with respect to the placing of the posts and
lines for the purposes of a telegraph. This conferment of
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
powers would be subject to such conditions and restrictions, if
any, that the appropriate Government may impose and the
provisions of the Telegraph Act.
9. Reference was made in Power Grid Corpn. of India
Ltd. case to Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act which
postulates the power of the
"10. Power for telegraph authority to place and
maintain telegraph lines and posts.--The telegraph
authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a
telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in
or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the
powers conferred by this section except for the purposes
of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central
Government, or to be so established or maintained;
(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any
right other than that of user only in the property under,
over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph
authority places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph
authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of
any property vested in or under the control or
management of any local authority, without the
permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this
section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage
as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in
respect of any property other than that referred to in
clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons
interested for any damage sustained by them by reason
of the exercise of those powers.
"16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10,
and disputes as to compensation, in case of property
other than that of a local authority.--(1) If the exercise of
the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property
referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order
that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise
them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section
(1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or,
having control over the property, does not give all facilities for
this being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed
an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of
the compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (d), it
shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing
parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the
property is situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to
receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the
persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph
authority may pay into the court of the District Judge such
amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing
parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be
sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-
section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving
notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be
heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the
compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in
which the persons interested are entitled to share in it.
telegraph authority to maintain telegraph lines and posts and
the provisions relating to compensation in exercise of those
powers. Clause (d) to Section 10 requires that the telegraph
authority shall do as limited damage as possible in exercise of
powers to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts, and
full compensation shall be paid to all persons interested for
any damage sustained by them. Sub-section (1) to Section 16
states that in the case of resistance or obstruction in respect
of powers exercised by the telegraph authority under clause
(d) to Section 10, the District Magistrate may in his discretion
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
make an order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted
to exercise the powers. Sub-section (3) to Section 16 states
that if any dispute arises with regard to the sufficiency of the
compensation to be paid under clause (d) to Section 10, the
District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated
shall determine the compensation.
10. On the legal effect of these provisions, this Court
had observed : (Power Grid Corpn. of India case SCC pp.
152-55, paras 21, 23 & 26)
"21. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the
aforesaid provision, the appropriate Government has conferred the
powers of telegraph authority vide Notification dated 24-12-2003
exercisable under the Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid. It
may also be mentioned that a Central transmission utility (CTU) is a
deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the
Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central transmission utility
and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act,
2003. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as
authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers
which are vested in a telegraph authority under the provisions of
the Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any
obstruction in the laying down of power transmission lines. As per
the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to
lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an
imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of villages all
over the country and availability of telegraph lines are the most
essential requirements for growth and development of any country,
economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens. The
legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in
achieving this objective and through the scheme of the Telegraph
Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied
the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines.
23. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the
telegraph authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under,
over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property.
The provision of Section 10(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it
abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down
telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right
other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it
causes as little damage as possible and that the telegraph authority
shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons
interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the
exercise of those powers.
26. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in
the given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was
arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that not
only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire
work had already been completed by the time the writ petitioner
started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power
Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant
factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned
transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line
to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also
explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over
agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilised for
erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not
prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid
buildings, religious places, ponds, etc. while laying down these
transmission lines. It is only when it becomes inevitable that towers
are placed on the private lands to the minimum and least extent
possible. That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case.
Another important factor, which needs repetition at this stage is that
no blasting is permissible within 300 m from the 400 kV line
(already existing) or the tower structure. Mining of limestone can be
taken up by adopting the methods other than use of
explosive/blasting -- without damage to the tower foundation/tower
structure or the line, which can be accomplished by using jack
hammer/pneumatic hammer with compressor so as to avoid any
damage to the line or tower. This aspect has also been taken note
of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment
dated 11-3-2008 [Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. Power Grid
Corpn. of India Ltd., WP (C) No. 1909 of 2007, order dated 11-3-
2008 (Chh)] . The Division Bench [Century Textiles & Industries
Ltd. v. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd., WA No. 42 of 2008, order
dated 2-8-2010 (Chh)] did not differ with any of these findings."
11. The decision in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd.
case [Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles &
Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143] highlights the imperative
and the need for unobstructed access for laying down the
electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest as
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
these are essential requirements for growth and development
of the country, economy and well-being of the citizens.
12. The counsel for the first respondent had submitted
that the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable as the
electricity transmission line in the present case is for the
benefit of the appellant and not for the public at large. This is
factually disputed by the appellant. MSETCL in its affidavit has
stated that the installation of transmission lines for the
generation of high voltage electricity is a policy decision of the
Government and for the public benefit at large. The service
line, even if is in the nature of "dedicated distribution
facilities", has no exclusivity and MSETCL would be entitled to
tap the said service line for providing electricity to other
consumers. This factual aspect would be a subject-matter of
the trial. It would not be appropriate at this stage to disregard
the statement made by MSETCL to stall the setting up and
activation of the electricity transmission lines.
It is therefore clear that even this contention urged on behalf of the
petitioner cannot be accepted.
17. As stated supra, the contention of the petitioners that
the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice is
clearly factually incorrect in the light of the material on record which
clearly establishes that not only sufficient and reasonable
opportunity had been provided to the petitioners, the objections,
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
representations, grievances etc., of the petitioners and other land
owners were considered by the 1st respondent, who conducted
meetings, in which, all of them participated and after obtaining a
spot inspection report, the 1st respondent passed the impugned
orders awarding enhanced compensation at the instance / request
of the petitioners and even this contention is liable to be dismissed.
18. The undisputed material on record will indicate that the
subject drinking water project was started on 11.09.2017 for filling
up 121 tanks across 89 villages and the 3 Districts of Davanagere,
Chitradurga and Shivamogga for a sum of Rs.431.24 crores, which
would benefit a population of about 150 lakhs. Due to various
reasons, the project was delayed and 90% of the project has been
completed as on today. Out of the total 49 towers, 41 towers had
already been installed and the remaining balance 8 towers are yet
to be installed due to the pendency of the present petitions. It is
needless to state that with the onset of summer season and acute
water shortage being faced in the region and any further delay will
deprive the public of drinking water in addition to causing huge
financial burden to the State. It is well settled that when private
interest is pitted against larger public interest, it is always public
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
interest that would have to prevail; in the instant case, as stated
supra, apart from the fact that the grievances of the petitioners
have been addressed by paying them enhanced compensation
pursuant to their participation in the proceedings culminating in the
impugned orders, it is always open for the petitioners to seek
enhancement of the compensation awarded in the impugned
orders by taking recourse to such remedies as available in law.
Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that
there is no merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of
the petitioners and the same are liable to be rejected.
19. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Both W.P.No.8243/2022 and W.P.No.18796/2022 are
hereby dismissed.
(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek
enhancement of compensation by taking recourse to such
remedies as available in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV/SRL
