Karnataka High Court
Mr.Nagarajappa vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8243 OF 2022 (GM-KEB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 18796 OF 2022(GM-KEB)
IN W.P. No.8243/2022
BETWEEN:
1. PARAMESHWARAPPA B Y
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA B Y
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A 6, BEERAGONDANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
2. DHANJAYA G S
S/O MAHALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A 6, BEERAGONDANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
3. YASHODAMMA
Digitally signed by W/O ESWARAPPA
LEELAVATHI S R AGED 68 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/A 6, BEERAGONDANAHALLI
COURT OF DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL APPAERING FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY COMMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTIRCT - 577 224.
2. SUB DIVISIONAL COMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 224.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HONNALI TLAUK
DAVANAGERE 577 127.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATKAA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD NO.4
BHADRA CANAL SUB DIVISION
SASVEHALLI 577 224.
5. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
TRANSMISSION (W AND M)
CIRCLE, K.P.T.C.L, GROUND FLOOR
HADADI RADO,
DAVANGER - 577 224.
6. M/S G.V.P.R ENGINEERS LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING REGD OFFICE AT 8-2-293/82/A
PLOT NO. 739-A, ROAD NO.37
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 033.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3
SRI. PRASHANTH.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-5
SRI. PRADEEP GOANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
THIS W. P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROPOSED PLAN
PREPARED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN W.P. No.18796/2022
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
INOORU SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
2. MR.S.K. NAGESH
S/O S. KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A KALESHWAR BEEDI SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
3. MR. HALESHAPPA
S/O SANNATIMMAPPA
AGED AOBUT 64 YEARS
INOORU SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
4. MR. H.N. VIJAYKUMAR
S/O H.N. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 69/B, INOORU SASWEHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
5. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJAYYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
HANUMANHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
6. MR. PATEL SAB
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SUBHAN SAB
R/A MAVINAKOTE
THANDA MAVINAKOTE
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
7. MRS. SHARADAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O KARIBASURU
BENAKANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
8. MR. H.K. VASAVARAJAPPA
S/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKABASURU
BENAHAKAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
9. GOVINDANAIKA
S/O KALANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
R/AT CHIKKABASURU TANDA
BENAKANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
10. MR. BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O RANGAPPA
R/AT CHIKKABASURU
BENAKANAHALLI,
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
11. MRS. SARVAMANGALA
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED A72 YEARS
R/A DAVANAGERE CHIKKABASURU
BENAKANAHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
12. MR. DANEDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
R/A CHIKKABASURU BENAHAKANHALLI
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
13. MRS. PARVATI BAI
W/O VENKATESHANAIK
R/A DAVANAGERE CHIKKABASURU TANDA
BENAKANAHALLI - 577 224.
14. MR. NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O BASAPPA
BEERAGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
15. MRS. BASAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
D/O BASAPPA
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
16. MR. B.H. RUDRESH
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
17. MR. B.G. BASANAGOUDA
S/O KARIBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
18. B.Y.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O BASAVARAJAYYA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
19. GOWRAMMA
W/O TIPPALLI BASAPPA
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
20. S. PARAMASHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
21. G.C. MANJUNATH
S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
22. G.B. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O BASAVANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
BEEREGONDANAHALLI
HONNALI, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
23. MR. G.E. HALESHAPPA
S/O ESHWARAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
UJJANIPURA
BEERAGONDAHALLI POST
DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL APPAERING FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPUTY COMMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTIRCT - 577 224.
2. SUB DIVISIONAL COMISISONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 577 224.
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HONNALI TLAUK
DAVANAGERE - 577 127.
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATKAA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD NO.4
BHADRA CANAL SUB DIVISION
SASVEHALLI - 577 224.
5. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE)
TRANSMISSION (W AND M)
CIRCLE, K.P.T.C.L, GROUND FLOOR
HADADI RADO, DAVANAGERE - 577 224.
6. M/S G.V.P.R ENGINEERS LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING REGD OFFICE AT 8-2-293/82/A
PLOT NO. 739-A, ROAD NO.37
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
TELANGANA - 500 033.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4
SRI. PRASHANTH.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-6
SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS W. P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE PROPOSED PLAN
PREPARED BY R4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840
WP No. 8243 of 2022
C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
ORDER
Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in both the petitions, they are taken up together for disposal.
2. In both the petitions, petitioners seek quashing of the proposed plan prepared by 4th respondent, AEE-KNNL and the publication dated 03.05.2021 issued by 2nd respondent, Sub- Divisional Commissioner and the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner. During the pendency of the petition, applications seeking amendment of the petitions by laying a challenge to the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the 1st respondent were filed by the petitioners, which were taken up for consideration along with main petitions.
3. The petitioners claimed to be the land owners of the subject land, over which, the respondents sought to erect electric towers and lay overhead electrical lines pursuant to the subject drinking water project viz., "Sasvehalli KVNL Lift Irrigation 66/11 KV S/S in Honnali Taluk and Davanagere District" to increase the existing 66 KV to 220/66 KV on self execution basis. Petitioners contend that the plan in relation to the Project followed by the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 paper publication dated 03.05.2021 and culminating in the impugned orders dated 11.10.2021 and 07.02.2022 merely granting compensation in favour of the petitioners and refusing to consider the objections of the petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be quashed. The petitioners have urged various grounds in support of their claim.
4. The respondents have opposed the petitions and contended that the subject drinking water project was launched keeping in mind the water scarcity in the locality and all statutory approvals and procedures have been complied with and followed by the respondents, who have provided sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners including considering their request for enhancement of compensation of the amounts awarded in the order dated 11.10.2021 which have been substantially increased in the subsequent order dated 07.02.2022 in favour of all the land owners / farmers including the petitioners and as such, there is no merit in the petitions and that the same are liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the respondents - -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 State and the learned counsel for remaining respondents and perused the material on record.
6. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:-
(i) The respondents are proceeding to draw overhead electric lines without obtaining prior approval of the appropriate Government as required under Section 68(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the said Act of 2003') and the impugned orders arising out of the subject project deserve to be quashed;
(ii) The appropriate Government has to frame Rules as required under Section 67(2) of the said Act of 2003 and since Rules have not been framed, Sections 12 to 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Rules made thereunder would continue to have effect as contemplated under Section 185(2)(b) of the said Act of 2003. It was submitted that the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the said Act of 1910 has not been followed in the instant case, which would vitiate the impugned orders.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
(iii) Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the said Act of 1885') mandates that if there is resistance or obstruction to putting up overhead lines and erecting towers, the 1st respondent has to provide an opportunity to the petitioners and hear them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It was submitted that since the petitioners objected to the project over their lands, both orally and in writing, an opportunity ought to have been provided to the petitioners and failure to do so by the respondents vitiates the impugned orders.
(iv) Before proceeding to erect towers and draw overhead lines, it was necessary to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the petitioners / land owners and on this ground also, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
(v) Both the orders dated 11.10.2021 and 07.02.2022 are orders under Section 16(3) of the said Act of 1885 and not under Section 16(1) of the said Act and as such, since the respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 16(1), the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
(vi) Both the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice since the objections of the petitioners were not considered and no opportunity was provided to them and
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on this ground also.
In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
1. Thirthesh A.S. vs. The Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka Department of Power Corporation and others -ILR 2006 KAR 4164;
2. Vivek Brajendra Singh vs. State Government of Maharashtra -(2012) 4 MAH LJ 625;
3. Birendra Kumar Deorah vs. Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd., and Ors. - (2020) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 646;
4. S.Kannappan (died) and others vs. The Commissioner, Tiruvottriyur Municipality, Madras and others -A IR 2000 MADRAS 56;
5. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others - (2017) 5 SCC 143 and
6. Jaisinh Parshottambhai Patel vs. Essar Power Transmission Co Ltd., and others. - 2015 SCC Online Guj 1202.
7. Per contra, Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the other respondents submit that the there is no merit in the petitions and the same are liable to be rejected. It was submitted that apart from the fact that prior
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 approval under Section 68 of the said Act of 2003 was obtained, the prescribed procedure has been followed and an opportunity was provided in favour of the petitioners who restricted their claim only to compensation and acquiesced to erection of electric towers and drawing of overhead lines by the respondents and consequently, the petitioners were estopped from putting forth false and frivolous contentions in the present petitions. It was submitted that obtaining of NOC / consent from the petitioners / land owners was not required as held by the Apex Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., & others -(2017) 5 SCC 143, which has been followed in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Century Rayon Ltd., vs. IVP Ltd., & others - (2021) 20 SCC 758 and as such, the said contention urged by the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
7.1 It was submitted that Section 67(2) of the said Act of 2003 was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand and consequently, the question of invoking Section 185(2)(b) of the said Act of 2003 or the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 would not arise as contended by the petitioners. It was further submitted that the petitioners had participated in the meetings and after the first order
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 dated 11.10.2021 was passed granting them compensation, the petitioners and all other land owners requested the respondents for higher compensation and pursuant to meeting conducted on 15.01.2022 in the presence of all stake holders including petitioners, the compensation was enhanced and as such, the present petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. The material on record discloses that on 11.01.2017, the appropriate Government - State of Karnataka granted approval for the subject project including drawing of overhead electric lines as required under Section 68(1) of the said Act of 2003. In pursuance of the same, vide communication dated 10.10.2019, the KPTCL granted approval for conducting a detailed survey for construction of the proposed 66 KV line in relation to the subject project. On 09.11.2020, the Deputy Commissioner addressed a communication to the Assistant Commissioner intimating him to notify the land owners about usage of their lands towards the project, pursuant to
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 which, the impugned paper publication dated 03.05.2021 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner.
10. On 22.07.2021, proceedings were conducted before the 1st respondent in which all the stake holders including the petitioners and other land owners were present, in pursuance of which, the Tahsildar addressed a communication dated 01.09.2021 to the Assistant Commissioner with regard to the value of the standing crops and trees situated on the subject lands and pursuant thereto, the Assistant Commissioner addressed a communication dated 01.10.2021 to the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner in this regard. On 04.10.2021, the Assistant Commissioner submitted an inspection report pursuant to spot verification at the request of the petitioners and other land owners. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner took note of and considered the representations, objections, grievances etc., of the land owners including the petitioners and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 awarding compensation in favour of all land owners including the petitioners on the basis of the type of towers and nature of land as can be seen from the impugned order.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
11. Subsequently, the petitioners and all other land owners / farmers submitted representations stating that the compensation awarded in the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 was inadequate and that the same requires enhancement. Accordingly, a meeting was conducted on 15.01.2022 by the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner in the presence of all the stake holders including the petitioners and other land owners. In pursuance of the said meeting, the 1st respondent passed a revised order enhancing / revising / increasing the compensation payable in favour of the petitioners and other land owners.
12. The aforesaid facts and circumstances including the participation of the petitioners and land owners in the proceedings and meetings before the 1st respondent who considered their claim for compensation and enhancement of compensation has been clearly recorded in the impugned orders dated 11.10.2021 and 07.02.2022. In this context, the material on record indicates that rather than resisting or obstructing the subject project or erecting electric towers and laying overhead lines, the petitioners and all other land owners had given their consent in this regard and their claim was restricted to compensation and enhanced compensation
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 which has been granted in their favour by the respondents. In fact, during the course of the meeting conducted on 22.07.2021, all the objections, representations, grievances etc., of the petitioners and other land owners were addressed by the respondents who obtained a spot inspection report from the Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar, on the basis of which, the impugned order dated 01.10.2021 was passed awarding compensation in their favour. Subsequent thereto, neither the petitioners nor the other land owners raised any objections regarding the said order dated 01.10.2021; instead, they participated in the meeting held on 15.01.2022 in which they requested for enhanced compensation and did not object to the subject project. It is therefore clear that having acquiesced to the subject project and restricting / limiting their claim only to compensation and enhanced compensation which have been awarded in their favour by the respondents, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the impugned orders and consequently, the conduct of the petitioners is sufficient to come to the conclusion that their claim is barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022
13. The contention of the petitioners that no prior approval was obtained from the appropriate Government as required under Section 68 of the said Act of 2003 is misconceived and untenable; as stated supra, on 11.01.2017 itself, the State Government (appropriate Government ) had granted approval to the subject project, pursuant to which, all other sanctions, approvals etc., were also issued by the respective respondents and authorities, all of which, are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed under Section 68 of the said Act of 2003 had been followed by the respondents and as such, the said contention urged by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
14. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that since no Rules have been framed under Section 67(2) of the said Act of 2003, the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 were required to be followed, in the absence of which the entire project including the impugned orders cannot be sustained is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected for more than one reason; firstly, Section 67(2) of the said Act of 2003 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case since the same do not deal with drawing of overhead lines which are covered by Section 68 of the said Act of
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 2003; secondly, Section 185(2)(b) of the said Act of 2003 would also not be applicable, as a consequence of which, the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was not applicable to the facts of the case on hand; thirdly, in the facts of the instant case, all procedural requirements have been followed and the petitioners having been notified were heard by the 1st respondent who considered their grievances along with the other land owners and obtained a spot inspection report and proceeded to pass the impugned orders. Under these circumstances, it is clear that even this contention urged by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
15. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the resistance and obstruction of the petitioners were not considered as required under Section 16(1) of the said Act of 1885 is concerned, as stated supra, the material on record is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the objections, representations, grievances etc., of the petitioners and other land owners were considered by the 1st respondent, who conducted meetings, in which, all of them participated and after obtaining a spot inspection report, the 1st respondent passed the impugned orders awarding enhanced compensation at the instance / request of the petitioners
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 who cannot be heard to complain that the procedure under Section 16(1) of the said Act of 1885 had not been followed. Under these circumstances, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
16. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners regarding obtaining of NOC from them is concerned, in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation's case and Century Rayon's case supra, the said contention cannot be accepted. In fact, in Century Rayon's case, the Apex Court held as under:-
8. On the aspect of use of the land belonging to a third party for setting up of the electricity transmission line, we would refer to the judgment of this Court in Power Grid Corpn.
of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. [Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143] wherein a Division Bench of this Court while examining Section 164 of the Electricity Act had observed that the appropriate Government may by order in writing for the purpose of placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity necessary for the proper coordination of works, confer on any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Electricity Act any of the powers that the telegraph authority possesses under the Telegraph Act with respect to the placing of the posts and lines for the purposes of a telegraph. This conferment of
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 powers would be subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, that the appropriate Government may impose and the provisions of the Telegraph Act.
9. Reference was made in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. case to Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act which postulates the power of the "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.--The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government, or to be so established or maintained;
(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.
"16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.--(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for this being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-
section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it. telegraph authority to maintain telegraph lines and posts and the provisions relating to compensation in exercise of those powers. Clause (d) to Section 10 requires that the telegraph authority shall do as limited damage as possible in exercise of powers to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts, and full compensation shall be paid to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them. Sub-section (1) to Section 16 states that in the case of resistance or obstruction in respect of powers exercised by the telegraph authority under clause
(d) to Section 10, the District Magistrate may in his discretion
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 make an order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise the powers. Sub-section (3) to Section 16 states that if any dispute arises with regard to the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under clause (d) to Section 10, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated shall determine the compensation.
10. On the legal effect of these provisions, this Court had observed : (Power Grid Corpn. of India case SCC pp. 152-55, paras 21, 23 & 26) "21. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under the aforesaid provision, the appropriate Government has conferred the powers of telegraph authority vide Notification dated 24-12-2003 exercisable under the Telegraph Act, 1885 upon the Power Grid. It may also be mentioned that a Central transmission utility (CTU) is a deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central transmission utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the fact that Power Grid is treated as authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a telegraph authority under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying down of power transmission lines. As per the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines is an imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of villages all over the country and availability of telegraph lines are the most essential requirements for growth and development of any country, economy and the well-being/progress of the citizens. The legislature has not permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in achieving this objective and through the scheme of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines, applied the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity transmission lines.
23. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The provision of Section 10(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and that the telegraph authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.
26. We also do not find that the action of the Power Grid, in the given circumstances, by not shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment as almost entire work had already been completed by the time the writ petitioner started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the Power Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out that all relevant factors/aspects were kept in mind while laying down the impugned transmission lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or crossed over agricultural land where minimum extent of land gets utilised for erecting towers and where agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds, etc. while laying down these transmission lines. It is only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on the private lands to the minimum and least extent possible. That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case. Another important factor, which needs repetition at this stage is that no blasting is permissible within 300 m from the 400 kV line (already existing) or the tower structure. Mining of limestone can be taken up by adopting the methods other than use of explosive/blasting -- without damage to the tower foundation/tower structure or the line, which can be accomplished by using jack hammer/pneumatic hammer with compressor so as to avoid any damage to the line or tower. This aspect has also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment dated 11-3-2008 [Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd., WP (C) No. 1909 of 2007, order dated 11-3- 2008 (Chh)] . The Division Bench [Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. v. Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd., WA No. 42 of 2008, order dated 2-8-2010 (Chh)] did not differ with any of these findings."
11. The decision in Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. case [Power Grid Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143] highlights the imperative and the need for unobstructed access for laying down the electricity transmission lines in the larger public interest as
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 these are essential requirements for growth and development of the country, economy and well-being of the citizens.
12. The counsel for the first respondent had submitted that the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable as the electricity transmission line in the present case is for the benefit of the appellant and not for the public at large. This is factually disputed by the appellant. MSETCL in its affidavit has stated that the installation of transmission lines for the generation of high voltage electricity is a policy decision of the Government and for the public benefit at large. The service line, even if is in the nature of "dedicated distribution facilities", has no exclusivity and MSETCL would be entitled to tap the said service line for providing electricity to other consumers. This factual aspect would be a subject-matter of the trial. It would not be appropriate at this stage to disregard the statement made by MSETCL to stall the setting up and activation of the electricity transmission lines. It is therefore clear that even this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
17. As stated supra, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice is clearly factually incorrect in the light of the material on record which clearly establishes that not only sufficient and reasonable opportunity had been provided to the petitioners, the objections,
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 representations, grievances etc., of the petitioners and other land owners were considered by the 1st respondent, who conducted meetings, in which, all of them participated and after obtaining a spot inspection report, the 1st respondent passed the impugned orders awarding enhanced compensation at the instance / request of the petitioners and even this contention is liable to be dismissed.
18. The undisputed material on record will indicate that the subject drinking water project was started on 11.09.2017 for filling up 121 tanks across 89 villages and the 3 Districts of Davanagere, Chitradurga and Shivamogga for a sum of Rs.431.24 crores, which would benefit a population of about 150 lakhs. Due to various reasons, the project was delayed and 90% of the project has been completed as on today. Out of the total 49 towers, 41 towers had already been installed and the remaining balance 8 towers are yet to be installed due to the pendency of the present petitions. It is needless to state that with the onset of summer season and acute water shortage being faced in the region and any further delay will deprive the public of drinking water in addition to causing huge financial burden to the State. It is well settled that when private interest is pitted against larger public interest, it is always public
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9840 WP No. 8243 of 2022 C/W WP No. 18796 of 2022 interest that would have to prevail; in the instant case, as stated supra, apart from the fact that the grievances of the petitioners have been addressed by paying them enhanced compensation pursuant to their participation in the proceedings culminating in the impugned orders, it is always open for the petitioners to seek enhancement of the compensation awarded in the impugned orders by taking recourse to such remedies as available in law. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the same are liable to be rejected.
19. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Both W.P.No.8243/2022 and W.P.No.18796/2022 are hereby dismissed.
(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek enhancement of compensation by taking recourse to such remedies as available in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV/SRL