- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38316 W.P. No.23871/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.23871/2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MURALIDHAR S/O LATE BALAKRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A ADKARU HOUSE JALSURU VILLAGE AND POST-574239 SULLLIA, D.K. 2. SRI. DIVAKAR RAI S/O LATE NARAYANA RAI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS JALSURU HOUSE JALSURU VILLAGE AND POST-574239 SULLIA, D.K. 3. SRI. K. VISHWANATHA RAO S/O LATE APPAJI RAO AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS R/A GREEN LAND HOUSE KANTHAMANGALA AJMARA-574239, SULLIA. 4. K.R. JAGADISH RAO S/O LATE RAMOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A KANTHAMANGALA AJMAR, SULLIA, D.K. 5. SMT. DEVAKI W/O ESHWAR GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS UJIRUGULI HOUSE SULLIA KASABA SULLIA-574239, D.K. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38316 W.P. No.23871/2025 6. SRI. SANDEEP K.Y. S/O YADOJI RAO AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/A KANTHAMANGALA AJMARA, SULLIA-574239. 7. YOGANANDA M.B. S/O LATE BABANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A KANTHAMANGALA HOUSE AJMARA, SULLIA-574239, D.K. 8. LINGAPPA GOWDA S/O LATE MONAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT. KONADKA PADAVU JALSURU VILLAGE AND POST-574239 SULLIA, D.K. 9. SRI. ARUN KUMAR .K AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O BALANNA GOWDA R/A KURUNJI HOUSE SULLIA-574239, D.K. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERESH M. UPPIN, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE KPTCL REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 09. 2. MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A B SHETTY CIRCLE, PANDESHWAR MANGALORE - 575001. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) MESCOM MAJOR WORKS DIVISION KPTCL, KAVOORU MANGALURU - 575015. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38316 W.P. No.23871/2025 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O AND M DIVISISON MESCOM BANNURU, PUTTUR 574243 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 16.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-E) WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 WEEKS. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT TILL THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS ARE CONSIDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to consider petitioners' representation dated 16.07.2025 at Annexure-E within three weeks, direct respondents not to proceed with project till consideration of petitioners' representation, etc. 2. Sri Veeresh M.Uppin, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were owners of respective agricultural lands as stated in paragraph 1 of writ petition. It was submitted that in year 2002-03, respondent no.1 had begun project for drawing of 110KV Electricity Transmission - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38316 W.P. No.23871/2025 Lines passing over petitioners' lands. Petitioners had opposed same and jurisdictional people's representative had suggested for installing said line over existing 33KV line. In meanwhile, Assistant Commissioner, proceeded to fix compensation. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed appeal. Said proceedings were challenged by petitioners in W.P.No.37569/2017. And by order dated 28.06.2024 said writ petition was dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail compensation under provisions of Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequently, petitioners had given representation to respondents as per Annexure-E series under acknowledgement at Annexure-F series suggesting respondents to lay transmission lines underground instead of overhead. Same was rejected without consideration. Therefore, petitioners had approached this Court seeking for direction. It was submitted while laying transmission lines authorities were required to ensure that there is least damage caused to owners of lands. Suggestion by petitioners for laying underground transmission lines was a proposal in this direction, but not considered. Therefore, petitioners were entitled for direction as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38316 W.P. No.23871/2025 sought for. On above grounds, sought for allowing writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. Contemplation of project for installation of overhead transmission lines by respondents and passing of same over petitioners' lands is not in dispute. Petitioners' grievance is about failure of respondents to consider representation for laying of transmission lines underground instead of overhead. It is seen that petitioners had earlier approached this Court espousing grievance against proceedings initiated by Deputy Commissioner under Section 16(1) of Act. Petitioners had urged contentions against implementation of project in said writ petition. While passing said order, specific submission about utilization of existing 33KV line for upgradation was taken note of. Even contention of petitioners about compensation being paid as per current market value, etc. was also noted. 4. While dismissing writ petition, this Court noted that project was already delayed and there was no error or illegality pointed out in action of respondents in implementation of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38316 W.P. No.23871/2025 project. It was noted that since petitioners had an efficacious remedy for seeking compensation, writ petition was dismissed. 5. If petitioners had pressed for compensation in earlier writ petition, they would be estopped from protesting against implementation of project. Their only remedy would be for compensation under Section 16(3) of Act. Mere filing of representation and approaching this Court within period of two weeks thereafter seeking for direction would amount to abuse and attempt of stalling project which is already noted by this Court to have been delayed. 6. In view of above, I do not find any good or justifiable ground to admit petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19