IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.H.G.RAMESH ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.5174-5188/2017 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN :
1. SRI OBALESHA SURESH MAHANTHESH S/O SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT BENKIKERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 2. SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O SRI SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 3. SRI P.G.MANJUNATHA S/O SRI GANGADHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 4. SRI G.S.MALLIKARJUNAPPA G.S.BASAVANTHAPPA S/O SRI SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 5. SRI P.S.NANDEESHA S/O SRI P.S.SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 6. SMT.RUDRAMMA W/O SRI RANGAPPA (SRI THIMMESHA RANGAPPA) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 7. SRI RUDRAPPA S/O SRI MELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 8. SRI H.S.MAHESHWARAPPA S/O SRI SHIVALINGAPPA (JOINT OWNER) AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT HEBBALAGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 9. SMT.DEVAMMA W/O SRI GANGAPPA (SRI JAYAPPA, S/O GANGAPPA) (JOINT) AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 10. SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O SRI SHANKARAPPA (JOINT) AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 11. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O SRI RAJAPPA (JOINT) AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 12. SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O SRI K.T.HANUMANTHAPPA (SRI K.T.RUDRAPPA S/O K.T.HANUMANTHAPPA) (JOINT) AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 13. SRI BASAPPA S/O SRI CHANNABASAPPA (JOINT) AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT THIMMALAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 14. SRI RUDRAPPA RAJAPPA KARIYAPPA S/O SRI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT MADAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 15. SRI R.M.RAJAPPA S/O SRI SIDDAPPA (RAVI S/O SIDDAPPA) AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT MADAPURA VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
(GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE SERVED) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2017 PASSED IN WP.NOS.23342-23356/2017 (GM-KEB) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Ag.CJ (Oral):
1. These intra court appeals are directed against the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants’ Writ Petition Nos.23342-23356/2017.
2. In the interest of justice, delay of 40 days in filing the appeals is condoned. IA No.1/2017 is allowed accordingly.
3. We have heard Sri N.R.Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the impugned order. In the writ petitions, the appellants had challenged the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, whereby the Deputy Commissioner had allowed the application filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) by directing the petitioners (appellants herein) not to obstruct drawing of the electricity lines through their fields. The learned Single Judge has affirmed the aforesaid order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 13.06.2017 which is impugned herein.
4. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made by the learned Single Judge at paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order:
“7. According to the respondent No.3, a large extent of the work has already been finished and a small extent of the work, still needs to be completed. Considering the fact that electrification of the State is an essential infrastructure for the progress of the State, learned Deputy Commissioner was justified in directing the petitioners not to interfere with the project, and in directing the respondent No.3 to complete the project.
8. Even if the petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that the productivity of the land may adversely be affected by drawing the lines, the Deputy Commissioner has clearly noticed, in the impugned order, that the petitioners would be entitled to seek compensation under Section 16(3) of the Act. But, under no circumstance can the petitioners prevent the drawing of the lines over their lands as their individual rights have to give way to the public interest at large.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions. They are hereby dismissed.”
5. We find that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeals, IA No.2/2017 filed for interim stay also stands dismissed.
Appeals dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE KSR Sd/- JUDGE