- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11362 WP No. 105610 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.105610 OF 2015 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. VISHWANATH S/O. KESHVA BHAT AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTEMANE, UMMACHAGI, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581359. 2. NARSHIMHA S/O. MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELGUNDI, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581359. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR-581302. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-33 KVS & L DIVISION, HESCOM, DANDELI-581325, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HESCOM, YELLAPUR-581359, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. MAHABALESHWAR S/O TIMMAPPA HEDGE AGE. MAJOR, OCC. RYOT, BAIGUNDI, UMMADAGI, TQ. YALLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING HIS ORDER NO.DCB/MAG-1/ELC/CR/12/2014-15 DATED 04.05.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-C & ETC. Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11362 WP No. 105610 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) Petitioner No.1 is the owner of land in R.S.No.1 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and petitioner No.2 is the owner of land in R.S.No.2 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas. The documents evidencing their rights are enclosed at Annexures-A and A1. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 who is the District Magistrate has passed an order permitting laying down of high tension line and other connected works and such order is passed in terms of the power conferred under Section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short ‘the Act’). It is the further case of the petitioners that though the order is passed under Section 12(2), there is no order regarding payment of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11362 WP No. 105610 of 2015 3. Section 12(2) of the Act reads as follows: “(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner or occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply-line or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land’ not dedicated to public use whereon, wherever or whereunder any electric supply line work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee: Provided that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on any building or land or, having been so fixed, may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency town, the Commissioner of Police by order in writing so directs: Provided also, that, if at any time the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or sturt has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency- town the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11362 WP No. 105610 of 2015 4. Though the power is conferred to pass an order under Section 12(2) of the Act for removal of obstruction permitting laying down of power supply line, it cannot be ignored that in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act, the Authority passing the order is also obligated to fix the amount of compensation. 5. Section 12(3) of the Act reds as follows: “When making an order under sub-section (2), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, shall fix the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier.” 6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order at Annexure-C, line has been laid. If that were to be so, under Section 12(3) of the Act, an order regarding compensation ought to have been passed. 7. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to pass suitable orders in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11362 WP No. 105610 of 2015 of this order. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Needless to state the order under Section 12(3) granting compensation if passed, would be with effect from the date of the order at Annexure-C. 8. Petitioners to present themselves before the 1st respondent on 25.09.2025. In light of the above, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP CT:VP