- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.11726 OF 2026 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: APPAJAPPA S/O LATE MAYAKANAHALLI VENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-562125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAKESH B BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ENERGY DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560009. 3. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL), REG. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, PROJECT 400 KV S.S.C.DIVISION, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.T. KOLLER, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. H.V. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 26.03.2026 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT i.e. RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.MAG (4) MIS/CR/38/2025-26 (ANNEXURE-A); DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER FEASIBILITY OF MODIFYING THE ALIGNMENT OF THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE AND CONNECT AP 25 TOWER WITH AP 22 USING THE LAND OF 1ST RESPONDENT WHICH IS ON THE WESTERN SIDE SY.NO.122 AS SHOWN IN SKETCH (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel submits that he has entered caveat for respondent No.3 and accepts notice for respondent No.3. 3. The present writ petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru- respondent No.2 dated 26.03.2026 (Annexure-A), whereby respondent No.3-KPTCL has been permitted to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 erect a transmission tower and draw a 440 KV line through the petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.122, Sulikonte Village. 4. Heard Sri D.R. Ravi Shankar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. The petitioner claims ownership and possession of 18 guntas of land, originally granted to his mother under a grant certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 03.07.1979 and contends that the proposed alignment passes through the middle of the property rendering it unusable. 6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed without considering feasibility of alternative alignment as directed by this Court in earlier proceedings in W.P.No.22997/2025 and connected matters. It is contended that a viable alternate route exist through Government land (Sy.No.122) connecting AP-25 to A-P22 which would - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 cause lesser damage. It is submitted that the authority has failed to comply with Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 which mandates causing least damage. 7. Learned Senior Counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the material on record including the Google Map (Annexure-F1) and the sketch (Annexure- G), to contend that the feasibility of modifying the alignment is clearly demonstrable. It is submitted that instead of the proposed alignment running through AP-25, AP-24, AP-23 and AP-22/1 traversing the petitioner’s line, the transmission line would be realigned directly from AP- 25 to AP-22 to the adjacent land thereby avoiding intrusion into the petitioner’s land. It is thus contended that this crucial aspect relating to feasibility of alternative alignment has been completely overlooked by the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 sought to justify the impugned order and submits that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 Sy.No.122 comprises lands in occupation of several grantees, of which petitioner is one of the beneficiary. It is therefore contended that having regard to the existing occupation and ground realities, the alignment as proposed by respondent No.3 is technically appropriate and has been finalized after due consideration and hence, does not warrant interference. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the District Magistrate has adverted to the contention of the petitioner regarding Sy.No.122 being gomal land. However, in the findings and reasoning the authority has merely observed that the execution of transmission work must ensure least damage to the private property and that deviation beyond 60 degree is impermissible and consequently held that the objections raised are unsustainable. The order, however, does snot - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 disclose any independent examination or application of mind to the feasibility of the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioner. 11. The manner in which the impugned order has been passed, this Court is of the considered view that the District Magistrate has failed to advert to the crucial aspect of feasibility of installing the tower in Sy.No.122 or to examine the factual position regarding the alleged occupation of the said land. There is no discussion or finding as why the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioner is not feasible. In the absence of such consideration, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 26.03.2026, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.2, is hereby quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20181 WP No. 11726 of 2026 iii. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the issue afresh specifically with regard to the feasibility of alternative alignment, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv. Till such consideration, the respondents shall not proceed with the installation of transmission power or laying transmission line in the petitioner's land. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23