Karnataka High Court
Shri Mruthunjaya G.A vs The Deputy Commissioner on 25 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
WA No. 1817 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1817 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI MRUTHUNJAYA G.A.
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MUSANDIHAL
GODABANAHAL POST
TQ. AND DIST: CHITRADURGA-577 501.
2. H. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O. HALAPPA
Digitally AGE: 43 YEARS
signed by H
K HEMA OCC: AGRICULTURE
Location: R/O. ANNEHAL POST
High Court
of TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
Karnataka
3. G.E. SHASHIDHAR @ UMESH
AGE: 53 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ANNEHAL POST
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
4. RAJAPPA
S/O. GADRAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
WA No. 1817 of 2024
AGE: 56 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O. ANNEHAL POST
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
5. CHIKKANNA
S/O. MAHADEVAPPA
AGE: 62 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ANNEHAL POST
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
6. RANGAPPA
S/O. DODDANINGAPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. B.G. HALLI
HOLELKERE
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
7. NINGAPPA
AGE: 72 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. B.G. HALLI, HOLELKERE
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
8. H. NAGAPPA
S/O. HANUMAPPA
AGE: 72 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. B.G. HALLI, HOLELKERE
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
9. S.B. MANJUNATH
S/O. BASAPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
WA No. 1817 of 2024
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. B.G. HALLI, HOLELKERE
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA -577 501.
10. G. RAMESH
S/O. GANGADHARAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ANNEHAL AT POST
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ABHISHEK A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION
BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA (KPTCL)
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
BRUHAT KAMAGARI VIBHAGA (KPTCL)
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
4. BASAPPA
S/O. BAIRAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MUSANDIHAL
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
WA No. 1817 of 2024
5. SIDDESH M.T.
S/O. THIPPESWAMY M.
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ANNEHAL AT POST
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
6. G. RAJAPPA
S/O. GANGADHARAPPA
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. ANNEHAL AT POST
TQ. AND DIST. CHITRADURGA-577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R.1.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.2645/2024 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW
THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY AND GRANT
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS INCLUDING THE
COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
WA No. 1817 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhishek A. for the appellants
and learned advocate Mr. K.S.Harish for respondent No.1.
2. The appellants-original petitioners have sought to address
challenge by filing the present appeal, to the judgment and order
dated 28.10.2024 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing writ
petition No.2645 of 2024.
3. The grievance of the petitioners raised in the writ petition was
against the action on part of the Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited (KPTCL) to lay 66/11 KV electricity
transmission line on the route of Kasaba Hobli, Godabanahal,
Annehal, Musandihal and Holalkere Taluka, Banjagondanahalli
village. The line proposed to be set up, it was the grievance of the
petitioners, was made to pass through the land bearing Survey
Nos.54/3A, 101/8, 53/10A, 246/2, 57/3, 108/1A1, 100/7, 106/1B4,
100/2B1, 106/1B2, 109/2, 100/4 and 100/5.
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
3.1. The petitioners had already raised objections before the
District Magistrate as back as in the year 2020. The objections
were overruled by the Competent Authority and the KPTCL was
permitted to proceed with the scheme of laying the transmission
line. The petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No.8391 of 2023
before this Court which was after a gap of three years.
3.2. The Court passed an order dated 21.04.2023 directing the
District Magistrate to reconsider the matter. It is recorded by
learned Single Judge that personal hearing was given to the
parties. The District Magistrate took into account the contentions of
the parties, passed the order dated 14.07.2023 rejecting the
objections of the petitioners. It is this order dated 14.07.2023
which was challenged again by the petitioners by filing writ petition
No.2645 of 2024 which has resulted into dismissal as per the
impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge.
4. It was observed by learned Single Judge that pursuant to the
representation of the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner was
directed to consider the grievance, carry out the spot inspection
and submit a report. The said report was filed and on the basis of
the report, office memorandum dated 11.07.2024 was issued by
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
which the decision in the order dated 14.07.2023 was confirmed. It
is to be noted that subsequent office memorandum dated
11.07.2024 and the decision reflected therein is not challenged by
the petitioners.
5. Apart and in addition to the above aspect, the order dated
14.07.2023 as well as the office memorandum dated 11.07.2024
observed that the acceptance of the petitioners request to alter the
route of the transmission line would lead to technical difficulties and
practical issues. The route of the transmission line was selected by
undergoing the necessary procedure including survey as
contemplated under the Telegraph Act.
5.1. The present appeal was a second route of litigation. The
petitioners case was considered earlier by the Court and the
Competent Authority was directed to reconsider the matter. At that
juncture, a report was again solicited and it was found that it was
not feasible to change the route of the line to accept the prayer of
the petitioners. The petitioners have been allowed to raise their
objections and were also given personal hearing. The objections
were considered by the authority.
NC: 2025:KHC:3321-DB
6. No right accrues for the petitioners. When there is no
enforceable right to seek alteration of the route of the transmission
line and the fact that the objections of the petitioners were truly
considered by the authority, no error could be booked in the
judgment and order of learned Single Judge in dismissing the
petition.
7. The present appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, any interlocutory application
that may be pending, would not survive and stands accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.
