SRI. G. S. BASAVARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 TO R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO ERECT ANY ELECTRIC HIGH TENSION TOWER OR DRAW HIGH TENSION ELECTRIC LINES OVER OR ACROSS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Sri. H.V.Devaraju, learned counsel entered caveat and is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: " a) issued a mandamus directing respondents not to erect any electric high tension tower or draw high tension electric lines over or across the schedule properties. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to enter upon or carry out any work in the Petition Schedule Property without following the procedure prescribed under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; c) Direct the Respondents to consider the objections of the Petitioners and examine alternative alignment causing least damage to the schedule properties. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."

4. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and in lawful possession of the agricultural as well as converted non-agricultural bearing Survey Nos.115/1, 115/2 and 116/3 situated at Gandasi Village, Arsikere Taluk, Hassan District ('the petition schedule premises' for short).

5. The grievance of the petitioners is against the action of the respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('KPTCL' for short) in proposing erection of the high-tension transmission towers and drawing of electrical lines pursuant to the notification dated 22.11.2023, which passes through the middle of the petitioners’ land, including the developed portions, thereby affecting the utility and value of the properties. It is stated that though the petitioners submitted detailed objections suggesting alternative routes, the respondents have proceeded without conducting any enquiry or obtaining - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR permission under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (‘the Act’ for short).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed objections before the authorities, constitute resistance/obstructions within meaning of Section 16(1) of the Act. Once such objections are raised, it is mandatory for the authorities to approach the District Magistrate and obtain permission. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in proceeding without following the statutory mandate is illegal and arbitrary. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THIRTHESH A S Vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPTT. OF POWER CORPORATION AND ORS1 (THIRTHESH), wherein it is held that filing of objections itself amounts to resistance requiring recourse under Section 16(1) of the Act. 1 AIR 2007 KARNATAKA 37 - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR

7. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the legal proposition of law that upon filing of objections, the authorities are required to approach the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act and seeks liberty to do so.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions. The point that arises for consideration is: “whether the respondents are justified in proceeding with the erection of high-tension transmission towers and drawing of electrical lines across the petitioners’ properties, without following the procedure under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885?”

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have submitted the objections to the proposed alignment, which are placed on record. The objections, in law, constitute resistance or obstruction within the meaning of Section 16(1) of the Act. Section 16(1) of the Act reads as under: - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR " 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 resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them."

10. The above provision mandates that where such resistance occurred, the authorities cannot proceed unilaterally, but must seek permission from the District Magistrate, who is required to consider the objections after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected land owners.

11. The Division Bench of this Court THIRTHESH's case has held at paragraph No.5 of the as under: " 5. Therefore the writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms: - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR (i) The judgment of the single Judge is set aside. (ii) In case respondents 3 and 4 still intend to draw the High Tension power line of 66 K.V. over the appellant's land, in view of the resistance and obstruction already offered by the appellant, respondents 3 and 4 shall seek permission of the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. (iii) If respondents 3 and 4 seek such permission the District Magistrate shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice the appellant and considering his objections, if any. (iv) Till permission is granted by the District Magistrate respondents 3 and 4 are restrained from proceeding with the further construction/erection of the High Tension power line over the appellant's land. Order Accordingly."

12. The Division Bench has categorically held that even filing of the objections is sufficient to trigger the requirement of approaching the District Magistrate. In the present case, admittedly, no such procedure has been - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR followed and the respondents are proceeded without obtaining the permission under Section 16(1) of the Act, thereby acting contrary to the statutory mandate. In view of the settled proposition of law, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: i) ii) ORDER The Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to seek permission from the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Act, 1885. iii) Upon such request, the District Magistrate issue notice the petitioners, consider objections appropriate orders, in accordance to the law. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:24338 WP No. 14218 of 2026 HC-KAR iv) Till such permission is obtained and orders are passed by the District Magistrate, the respondent shall not take any precipitative actions in respect of the petition schedule premises. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21