IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.52083/2019 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
SMT.SHANTHA J. PAI W/O JAGANNATH V. PAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ‘PARISHRAM’, No.46/52 10TH A MAIN, 1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011. …PETITIONER (BY Ms/Mrs.SAHANA PAI, ADV. FOR SRI RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADV.) AND:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION No.2, GREATER WORKS DEPARTMENT KPTCL, KOLAR-563102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.V.DEVARAJU, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS THE NOTICE DATED 06.12.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 06.12.2019 passed by the respondent whereby the petitioner has been requested to co-operate for the installation of high tension electric wires and the electric pole in the lands of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession of the land in Sy.No.169 [Old Sy.No.112], Kotthakote Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District measuring 3 acres 4 guntas 4 guntas. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent attempted to encroach upon the land of the petitioner on the premise of erection of the structure to support the electrical transmission lines which was objected by the petitioner since no prior notice was issued for erecting any electrical lines in the lands of the petitioner.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that if any obstruction/objection is raised by the owner of the land, the respondent authorities are required to approach the learned District Magistrate for leave to erect the tower but the said recourse not being taken, the respondent- authority is attempting to install the tower, poles and the lines in the lands of the petitioner much against the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [‘Act’ for short].
4. Learned counsel for the respondent – Authority would submit that in view of the obstructions/objections raised by the petitioner, the respondent-Authority shall move before the learned District Magistrate under Section 16[1] of the Act.
5. In view of the said submissions, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the respondent-Authority to take recourse to the provisions of Section 16[1] of the Act and then proceed in accordance with law.
Till the final order is passed by the learned District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act, no precipitative action shall be initiated by the respondent- Authority.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.