- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:144 WP No. 107143 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.107143 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: K N DIVAKARGOUDA S/O. K N CHANDRASHEKHAR GOWDA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: ITTAGI VILLAGE, TQ: HOOVINA HADAGALI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR – 583 219. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINAYAKA R. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, HOSPETE – 583 201. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), MAJOR WORKS SUB-DIVISION, KPTCL, HOSAPETE – 583 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.M.TONNE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/09/2024 BEARING CASE NO.SAM.KAM.M.AG.1.181.2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-K INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED TO THE WRIT PETITION AS IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT NOT TO DISPOSES THE PETITIONER FROM THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.387 2 ACRES HISSA A AND SY.NO.389 EXTENT OF 13.48 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HADAGALI TALUK, ITTAGI HOBLI, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 11:27:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:144 WP No. 107143 of 2024 ITTAGI VILLAGE, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: i) Issue a writ in the nature certiorari and quash the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 26/09/2024 bearing case no.sam.kam.m.ag.1.181.2023-24 vide Annexure-K insofar as petitioner is concerned to the writ petition as it is illegal and unconstitutional. ii) Consequently issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to disposes the petitioner from the land bearing Sy.No.387 2 acres Hissa A and Sy.No.389 extent of 13.48 Guntas situated at Hadagali Taluk, ittagi Hobli, Ittagi Village, Vijayanagar District vide Annexure - H to the writ petition. iii) Consequently, pass such other orders, issue writ, mandamus, direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the interest of justice and equity. 2. For the purpose of laying of electricity cable, the KPTCL appears to have utilized the land of the petitioner for granting compensation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:144 WP No. 107143 of 2024 3. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 10 of the Telegram Act, where the compensation is determined after hearing the parties. Against the said order, the subject petition would not be entertainable in the light of the remedy under Section 16 of the Telegram Act to approach the District Court. The identical issue is answered by Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.121560/2020, where the Coordinate Bench has held as follows: “The petitioner, who is the owner of land bearing Sy. No.96/2 of Sorgaon Village, Mudhol Taluk, Bagalkot District, has impugned different communications which relates to computation of the compensation determined by the competent authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner’s grievance as regards the adequacy of the compensation must be necessarily addressed under Section 64 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. With the alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, but subject to all just exceptions in law, to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:144 WP No. 107143 of 2024 avail such remedy and also seek exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting this petition with necessary orders on interest for this period. The petition stands disposed of accordingly without any observation on the merits.” 4. In that light, petition is disposed. The petitioner is reserved liberty to knock at the doors of appropriate forum/fora. 5. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49