- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32877-DB WA No. 1672 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1672 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 106. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, JIGANI HOBLI, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK-562 106. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA) AND: 1. SMT. JAKKAM REDDY SUNITHA, W/O. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO. 115/1-1, 6TH CROSS, BAPUJI LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040, PRESENTLY AT NO. 305/A, M.L.A. LAYOUT ROAD NO. 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-34, (TELANGANA). 2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32877-DB WA No. 1672 of 2024 (KPTCL), KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO- 23010/2018 C/W WP NO-3954/2018 (KLR-RES) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL B) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP NO-23010/2018 C/W WP NO-3954/2018 (KLR-RES) FILE BY THE RESPONDENT NO-1. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of IA No.1/2024, the same is allowed. Delay of 168 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23010/2018 C/W W.P.No.3954/2018 (KLR-RES) [NC:2024:KHC:15966]. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32877-DB WA No. 1672 of 2024 3. The learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to issue necessary directions to pass orders to grant alternative lands to the writ petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is a serious dispute as to whether any land belonging to the writ petitioner was appropriated. She submits that the survey has been carried out and the land allotted to Karnataka Power Transport Corporation Limited [KPTCL] was not the land belonging to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the question of paying any compensation either in monetary terms or by allotment of alternative land, does not arise. 5. We consider it apposite to note paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned order, which are set out below: "3. This Court had directed the learned AGA to secure instructions and make submissions. It was subsequently brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent- KPTCL had deposited a sum of Rs.34,65,000/- with the State Government for getting the land granted for the purpose of construction of a sub-station. This Court had therefore directed the Deputy Commissioner to verify from the records and state as to whether the sub-station was now set up on the land belonging to the petitioner and if that is so, then to recommend to the State Government for either payment of compensation or for grant of alternative lands to the petitioner. 4. Although sufficient time was granted to the respondent- State and he KPTCL to make submissions having regard to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32877-DB WA No. 1672 of 2024 the grievance of the petitioner, nothing is forthcoming from the respondent-State or the KPTCL." 6. It is apparent from the above that the learned Single Judge had granted relief as there was no contest to the claim of the writ petitioner that her land had been allotted to KPTCL. In the event, the appellants seek to raise a dispute in this regard, it would be apposite to the appellants to do so before the learned Single Judge since the issue now sought to be raised is not the subject matter of any adjudication by the learned Single Judge. 7. We do not consider it apposite to entertain the present appeal. However, it is open to the appellants to prefer a review petition, if so advised. 8. The Writ Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. All pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34