- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 22997 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22998 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) IN WP No. 22997/2025 BETWEEN: SRI C. RAMESH, S/O LATE A CHINNAPPA, ABED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …PETITIONER [BY SRI PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE (PH)] AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL) REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, PROJECT 400 KV S.S.C. DIVISION, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560 024. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 (PH): SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 (PH)] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF MODIFYING THE ALIGNMENT OF LAYING LILO LINE OF 400KV AS PER THE ALIGNMENT TO BRING THE PRESENT PROPOSAL WITHIN SY. NO. 122 OF SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, WHICH IS THE LAND OWNED BY THE R1 STATE (GOVERNMENT LAND). ALTERNATIVE TO DIRECT THE R2 NOT TO CARRY ON ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS EXPEDITIOUS AS POSSIBLE. IN WP NO. 22998/2025 BETWEEN: SRI APPAJAPPA, S/O LATE MAYAKANAHALLI VENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL) REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, PROJECT 400 KV S.S.C. DIVISION, HEBBAL, BENGALURU - 560 024. ...RESPONDENTS [BY SRI VAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 (PH): SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 (PH)] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF MODIFYING THE ALIGNMENT OF LAYING LILO LINE OF 400KV AS PER THE ALIGNMENT TO BRING THE PRESENT PROPOSAL WITHIN SY. NO. 122 OF SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, WHICH IS THE LAND OWNED BY THE R1 STATE (GOVERNMENT LAND). ALTERNATIVE TO DIRECT THE R2 NOT TO CARRY ON ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS EXPEDITIOUS AS POSSIBLE. THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Since both writ petitions arise out of similar facts, they are taken up together for final disposal. And in order to avoid duplication, specific facts in W.P.no.22997/2025 only are stated below. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 2. Both petitions are for similar reliefs namely to direct respondents to consider feasibility of modifying alignment of LILO line of 400 KV by passing through that portion of Sy.no.122 of Sulikunte village, which belongs to respondent - state government or in alternative not to carry on Line Laying work in petitioner's land without payment of compensation, etc. 3. Sri Prakash T.Hebbar, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners in both writ petitions were owners of 18 guntas of land in Sy.no.122 of Sulikunte Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, which was granted to their respective parents, whose names were mutated in revenue records. And after their death names of petitioners were mutated. 4. And while petitioners were using said lands for agricultural activities, respondent no.2 and instrumentality of State came to their lands with heavy equipment allegedly for installation of 400KV LILO line. It was submitted, installation of towers and power-lines proposed to be done by respondents as per Annexure-D would virtually destroy value of petitioners' land and affect their livelihood. Therefore, opposed respondents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 from carrying out installation work. Moreover, same was without first paying any compensation. Hence, writ petitions were filed. 5. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent no.2, on instructions, would submit that prior to coming to petitioner's lands, respondents-authorities had issued paper publication and followed procedure for installation work. Only when they were at stage of execution of work, petitioners had objected/obstructed their work. Same would lead to delay prejudicing respondents. 6. It was submitted, above act on part of petitioners amounted to obstruction of installation work falling within scope of Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act', for short), required to be examined and resolved by District Magistrate. Therefore, petitions were filed without availing said remedy. On said ground, sought dismissal. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 8. From above, it is seen petitioners' grievances are not only against respondents installing Towers/HT Power Lines over their lands but also about manner in which it was being carried out. 9. As stated above, petitioners obstructed installation of transmission lines on their lands. Same would amount to 'obstruction' falling within scope of Section 16(1) of Act. And as rightly submitted, same would require consideration/resolution by District Magistrate. 10. Moreover, Division Bench of this Court in case of Thirthesh A.S. v. Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka and Ors. reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4164 has held, if any objections are filed, same will have to be treated as resistance or obstruction and authorities were bound to refer same to District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of Act, for resolution. It is also seen that Section 16(3) of Act would empower District Magistrate to determine damages for laying of Power Transmission lines. 11. In view of above, both Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Respondents are directed to treat Annexure-E - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29592 WP No. 22997 of 2025 C/W WP No. 22998 of 2025 and filing of writ petitions as obstruction and refer same to District Magistrate for resolution. Needless to observe that until resolution, respondents would not carry out installation work on petitioners' lands. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30