- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 4885 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: SRI GIRISH V V S/O LATE VENKATA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, NO.01, SAKALESHPURA TALUK VTC; KADABANAHALLI, PO, SUNDEKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN -573 127. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RASHMI R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, (CHESCOM) O & M SUB DIVISION NEAR NEW BUS STAND CESC SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH SAKALESHPUR HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 3. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIRADAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH SAKALESHPUR TALUK, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. 4. SRI. AVINASH R. 98/41, 15TH CROSS 11TH MAIN ROAD, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 TO R4 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-K DATED 13.11.2024 BEARING NO.TAAPAMSA/BEGRAPAM/DURUARJI/ 2024-2025 AND ALSO NOTICE DTD. 15.11.2024 BEARING NO. CHESCOM/SAKAE/HESA/SAPURA/1569 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNX-L AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned communication issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-K dated 13.11.2024 bearing No.TAAPAMSA/BEGRPAM/DURUARJI/2024 -2025 and also notice dated 15.11.2024 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 bearing No.CHESCOM/SAKAE/HESA/ SAPURA/1569, issued by the Ist respondent as per Annexure-L in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Issue writ of seeking Mandamus to direction, directing to the Ist respondent as per Annexure-G dated 12.05.2024, to restore the electricity connection to the constructed house measuring 30 x 40 square feet of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.15, Kadabanahalli village, Sundekere post, Kasaba Hobli, Sakaleshpur Taluk, Hassan District and etc., 2. Sri.Sathisha DJ., learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Rashmi R., for petitioner submitted that, father of petitioner was a tenant under original owner, Annaiahachar and cultivating land bearing Sy. no.15 of Kadabanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sakaleshpur Taluk, Hassan District, wherein, he was residing along with his family members in a house constructed on 30 ft x 40 ft area. 3. It was submitted, father of petitioner had filed Form no.7 for grant of occupancy rights under provisions of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 Karnataka Land Reforms Act. By order dated 05.05.1987, Land Tribunal, Hassan rejected application. However, appeal filed before Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Hassan was allowed; order passed by Land Tribunal was set aside and occupancy rights were granted. Said order was challenged in LRRP No.2814/1989. 4. Said revision petition along with other connected LRRPs was disposed of on 05.03.2004, remanding matter to Land Tribunal for fresh consideration and directing parties to maintain status quo till final adjudication. It was submitted said proceedings had not yet concluded. Though a house was constructed earlier, in year 2013, petitioner obtained license from Biradahalli Grama Panchayath and constructed new house therein. At that time, Grama Panchayath conducted a spot inspection and issued certificate to petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner applied to respondent/Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Limited (for in short ‘CHESCOM’) for power supply and obtained electricity connection through R.R.No.BDL.37789. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 5. Such being case, Panchayath issued communication dated 13.11.2024 to CHESCOM stating that, petitioner's name was not entered in demand register and there was no record for having issued No Objection Certificate. 6. In pursuance of same, CHESCOM issued impugned notice to petitioner, as per Annexure-L. It was submitted that, petitioner being tenant of land in question and tenancy proceeding being pending and interim order of status quo passed therein would sufficiently protect petitioner's possession. 7. It was further submitted even in O.S. no.117/2024 filed by Smt.Jayamma and others co-tenants of land along with Petitioner, Trial Court by order dated 20.04.2024 on IAs no.I, II and III, Trail Court granted an order of status quo. Though in MA No.13/2024 and connected matters, Appellate Court modified same and granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent no.6, as against petitioner, who was arrayed as defendant no.10 in suit, said order was questioned in W.P. no.30311/2024 and connected matters and by order dated 24.02.2025, this Court restored order of status quo in respect - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 of house property situated in Sy no.15. Even said order would reinforce petitioner's claim insofar as property in question and render proceedings initiated by respondent, as per Annexure-L, is illegal. On said ground, petitioner sought for allowing petition. 8. On other hand, Sri.H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent no.1, opposed petition. 9. It was submitted that, on receipt of intimation (as per Annexure-K) from Grama Panchayath regarding non- issuance of No Objection Certificate to petitioner and petitioner’s name was not entered in demand register, respondents issued notice to petitioner at Annexure-L. Said notice called upon petitioner to submit reply and produce records to satisfy his claim insofar as property in question, as would be necessary to sustain power connection. 10. In case reply were submitted, respondents would consider same and pass appropriate orders. It was submitted that, petitioner was challenging only a notice and therefore, petition was not tenable. On said grounds, he sought dismissal of the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 11. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition. 12. From above, it is seen petitioner's challenge against communication at Annexure-K by Gram Panchayath, resulting in notice at Annexure-L being issued by CHESCOM, is on ground that petitioner's claim in respect of property in question was pending consideration before Land Tribunal, wherein an order of status quo was passed. Similarly, this Court in WP no.30311/2024 and connected matters has granted a similar order directing parties to maintain status quo with regard to house property in question. 13. Under such circumstances, initiation of proceedings for disconnection, pending proceedings would not be tenable. Indeed, contention that writ petition is filed against notice, would appear substantial, it is fact that petitioner's claim insofar as premises is pending adjudication before Tribunal and protected by an interim order. In view of this, until conclusion of said proceedings, it would not be appropriate for respondent to take steps for disconnection. Hence, it would be appropriate to direct respondents to keep notice at Annexure-L in abeyance until conclusion of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32508 WP No. 4885 of 2025 proceedings before Land Tribunal (Land Reform (Inam) Case no.1/2004-2005 before Deputy Commissioner), subject to any further or final orders in WP no.30311/2024. With above observations, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15