- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.39248 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S.R. ARUN KUMAR S/O. LATE S.R. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.70, SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, 1ST BLOCK, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 2. SMT. NALINA S.L., W/O. BOMMALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.194, 5TH CROSS, BHUNESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 056. 3. SMT. GEETHA S.L., W/O. DEVAIAH K., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 15, 7TH CROSS, BHUNESHWARINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 056. 4. SRI MANJUNATHA S.L., S/O. LATE LINGAPPA S.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, 1ST BLOCK, SONDEKOPPA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-562130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHUKAR M.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. (K.P.T.C.L.), Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 1ST FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVANA, BENGALURU-560009. 2. SRI RAVINDRA S.M., S/O. LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE AND POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 3. SMT. V.R. VARALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE RUDRAIAH @ RUDRESH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.185, CHANNENAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562130. 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE VEERAMUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, 1ST BLOCK, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 5. SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH S.R., S/O. LATE ANGADI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, 1ST BLOCK, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 6. SRI APPAYYANNA S.M., S/O. LATE V. MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.263, 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. 7. SRI CHANNAMAIAH, S/O. LATE PUTTASHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 4TH BLOCK, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 8. SRI RANGASHAMAIAH, S/O. LATE ANGADI RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, 1ST BLOCK, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 9. SRI VENKATESHMURTHY, S/O. LATE VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKIPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 10. SMT. PUTTA ARASAMMA, S/O. MUNIRANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, 4TH BLOCK, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562130. 11. SRI S.M. LAKSHMIKANTH, S/O. LATE MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE AND POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-11 DISPENSED WITH V/O. DATED 22/04/2026) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2025 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN MISCELLANEOUS NO.5/2018 WITH REGARD IMPOSING OF COST FOR ALLOWING APPLICATIONS (ANNEXURE-A) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The short question that arises for consideration is: “Whether the Trial Court was justified in imposing costs of `10,000/- and `25,000/- while allowing the application filed by the legal representatives to come on record?” 2. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 24.11.2025 passed in Misc.No.5/2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (‘Trial Court’ for short), insofar as it imposes cost of `10,000/- and `25,000/- by allowing the applications filed by the petitioners to come on record as legal representatives. Brief facts: 3. Respondent Nos.2 to 11, along with deceased S.R. Ramaiah and Smt. Jayamma, had filed a petition in Misc.No.5/2018 under Sections 10(d), 16(3), and 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 “the Act of 1885” for short), seeking compensation for utilization of their lands by respondent No.1. 4. During the pendency, petitioner No.7 (S.R. Ramaiah) and petitioner No.9 (Jayamma) died. The present petitioners being their legal representatives, filed applications under Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to come on record. 5. The Trial Court allowed the applications, but imposed cost of `10,000/- and `25,000/-. Aggrieved by the imposition of costs, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that delay in filing application was neither deliberate nor due to negligence. The deceased alone managing the litigation, and the legal representatives were unaware of the proceedings. Immediately after knowing, steps were taken to file applications. It is submitted that the petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 filed before the Trial Court arises under a beneficial legislation and the petitioners are agriculturists, imposition of heavy cost causes undue hardship. It is submitted that the Trial Court, having allowed the applications, erred in imposing excessive costs. 7. Upon consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the Trial Court has allowed the applications filed by the petitioners to come on record as legal representatives. Though there is some delay in filing the applications, the same cannot be said to be deliberate or wanton. The petitioners have stated that they filed the application after coming to know of the pendency of the proceedings. The explanation offered cannot be termed as lacking bona-fides. Further, the proceedings arise under the provisions of the Act of 1885, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation insofar as it provides compensation for utilization of land. In such circumstances, imposing of heavy cost would defeat the ends of justice. The Trial Court, while exercising its discretion, has imposed cost in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22231 WP No. 39248 of 2025 a mechanical manner without due consideration of the surrounding circumstances. The cost imposed are excessive and unwarranted. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition stands allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed in Misc.No.5/2018 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, insofar as it imposes costs of `10,000/- and `25,000/- on the legal representatives of petitioner Nos. 7 and 9, is hereby set aside. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20