- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4045 WP No. 29452 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 29452 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: HEMANTH KUMAR H.S., S/O SHIVAKUMAR H.N., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HODIGERE VILLAGE, BRAMHANA BIDI, NO.81, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYANSH NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARALE SANTOSH SUBHASHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KPTCL MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, HADADI ROAD, BAPUJI BANK, DAVANGERE-577002. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, HADADI ROAD, BAPUJI BANK, DAVANGERE-577002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH B., AGA FOR R1; SMT. PADMA S. UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4045 WP No. 29452 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Suryansh Naidu., counsel on behalf of Sri.Nagarale Santosh Subhashchandra., for the petitioner, Sri.Manjunath.B., Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Smt.Padma S.Uttur., counsel for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared in person. 2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner of land bearing Survey No.114/2 of Hadigeri Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk. The petitioner further contends that the erstwhile owner, namely H.S.Venkateshamuthy, executed an unregistered agreement to sell the property in his favor and he was put in possession of the property in 2019. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed and the property was formally registered in the name of the petitioner in 2022. The delay in registration was due to the unforeseen circumstances arising - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4045 WP No. 29452 of 2025 out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner contends that the respondents installed a 220/66 KV electric line and tower on his property in approximately 39 guntas, and he has been restrained from planting areca nut and coconut trees on the said portion of the land. Thus, there is a loss of income. 3. The petitioner filed a case before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, and the same has been dismissed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on several grounds as settled in the memorandum of writ petition. 4. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers without more care. 5. Is the Trial Court’s order based on a misunderstanding of the law, or does it contain findings unsupported by evidence? 6. The petitioner alleges that the installation of the power line has rendered a substantial portion of their land useless, causing severe financial loss. The petitioner contends that the installation of the power line on their property has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4045 WP No. 29452 of 2025 resulted in significant loss, and consequently, they are seeking adequate compensation. 7. The physical installation work at the property was completed on 14.02.2022, during which the property was under the ownership of the erstwhile owner. The petitioner subsequently acquired ownership of the said property in October, 2022. The "erstwhile owner" did not raise any objection, make any complaints, or file any grievance regarding the installation. Since the petitioner was not the owner at the time of the installation, he is not a "person aggrieved" by the action taken by the authority on 14.02.2022. Moreover, liability runs with the title at the time of the incident. Because the petitioner bought the property after the installation was completed and accepted by the previous owner, the petitioner has no right to challenge the installation and seek compensation. 8. The order is well-reasoned and calls for no interference. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4045 WP No. 29452 of 2025 Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48