- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33907 W.P. No.25290/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.25290/2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. ASHA MOUDGIL W/O LATE HARBHAJAN LAL MOUDGIL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.104, STERLING MANOR APARTMENTS, R V ROAD JAYANAGAR, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU -560 004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADV.,) AND: 1. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) YELAHANKA SUB STATION YELAHANKA, BENGALURU -560064 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE -560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.C. THIMMAIAH, ADV., FOR SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33907 W.P. No.25290/2022 CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AND QUASH THE LETTER BEARING NO.SRTS-11/YLK/TLM/2022-23/55 DATED 16.05.2022 (ANNEXURE K) ISSUED BY THE R1 AND GIVE A DIRECTION THAT GUIDELINES DTD 15.10.2015 ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE PETITIONER'S CASE THE SAME BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a letter bearing No.SRTS- 11/YLK/TLM/2022-23/55 dated 16.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1, by which, it assessed the compensation payable in respect of drawing the lines over survey No.479/325 of Doddajala Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore North, Bangalore. The petitioner has also sought for a direction that the guidelines dated 15.10.2015 issued by the respondent No.1 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to determine and pay the compensation, taking into account the peculiarities of the land in question and in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33907 W.P. No.25290/2022 Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of a site bearing No.325 formed in survey No.479/325 of Doddajala Village, measuring 371.61 square meters. She contends that the respondent No.1 had laid an overhead line, over an area measuring 313.30 square meters thereby rendering the entire site useless. She therefore contends that she is entitled to the compensation not only in respect of 311.30 square meters but also in respect of 371.61 square meters. She contends that contrarily the respondent No.1 has assessed the compensation at a sum of Rs.5,32,657.50, by applying the guidelines dated 15.10.2015 framed by the respondent No.1. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, challenging the said communication as well as for a direction that the guidelines dated 15.10.2015 is not applicable to her case. 3. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1, who has filed an elaborate statement of objections. However, an objection is raised that the petitioner has an alternate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33907 W.P. No.25290/2022 remedy of approaching the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 4. A perusal of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act shows that the telegraph authority is bound to pay full compensation to those persons who have interest in any land, which is damaged or rendered useless due to the drawing up of a telegraph line or an electricity line. Under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, if any dispute arises regarding the sufficiency of the compensation assessed or paid, such disputes have to be raised before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact and therefore it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and claim the compensation that she is lawfully entitled to. The writ petition is therefore disposed off on the above terms. 6. It is open for the petitioner to approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction her property lies and if a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33907 W.P. No.25290/2022 dispute is raised before the District Judge, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6