GAJANANA S/O SHANKAR SHET vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO.101018 OF 2026 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN:
GAJANANA S/O. SHANKAR SHET,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: V. T. ROAD,
SONAR KERI, SUSAGADI,
TALUK: BHATKAL,
DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA – 581 402.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR – 581 301.
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
COMPANY LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BENGALURU – 560 009,
BY ITS MANAGIND DIRECTOR.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY),
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR – 581 301.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(ELECTRICITY),
MAJOR WORKS SUB DIVISION,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, NEAR KPTCL
OFFICE,
KEB COLONY, COURT ROAD, SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA – 581 401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAKESH M. BILKI, GA FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL,
ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO BY SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02-09-2026, PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN WRIT PETITION
NO.106264/2024, THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT IN WRIT PETITION NO.106264/2024, MAY
KINDLY BE ALLOWED WITH COST, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
1. Heard the learned counsel Shri J.S. Shetty
appearing for the appellant; learned HCGP Shri Rakesh
Bilki appearing for respondent No.1; & learned counsel
Shri Shivaraj P.Mudhol appearing for respondent
Nos.2 to 4.
2. The appellant stands before us calling in
question an order of the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.106264 of 2024, by which the learned Single
Judge rejects all other contentions of the petitioner and
dismisses the petition on the ground that the appellant is
entitled to compensation and nothing beyond that.
3. The order of the learned Single Judge is as
follows:
“12. Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and having perused the
material on record, the following question arises for
consideration:
“Whether the petitioner can
seek quashing of the notice dated
14.06.2024 and restrain the
respondents from drawing the 110 KV
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
overhead transmission line merely on
the ground that his consent has not
been obtained and the land has not
been acquired?”
13. The question is no longer res
integra. The power to place and maintain electric
transmission lines over private property, when
exercised pursuant to statutory authority under
Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with
the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,
does not contemplate acquisition of the land as a
condition precedent.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Power
Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and Others,
(2017) 5 SCC 143, while considering the scope of
Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, has
held that the authority does not acquire any right in
the property other than the right of user. At the
same time, Section 10(d) obligates the authority to
cause as little damage as possible and to pay full
compensation for the damage sustained by the
person interested by reason of exercise of such
statutory powers.
15. The relevant principle enunciated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the exercise of the
statutory power to lay transmission lines does not
result in acquisition of the land. The right retained
by the owner is the ownership and possession of
the property, subject to the statutory right of user
exercised by the transmission authority.
16. The same principle has been
consistently followed by this Court. In W.P.
No.104689/2025, this Court, while considering a
similar grievance concerning transmission lines, has
held that when electric lines are laid in larger public
interest and for developmental activities, consent of
the landowner is not mandatory. The landowner is,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
however, entitled to notice and compensation for
the damage caused. It has also been observed that
if the landowner is aggrieved by the compensation
determined, an appropriate remedy is available
under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
17. More importantly, the Division Bench of
this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited v. M/s Abhishek Developers,W.A.
Nos.1203 of 2022 and connected matter, has
drawn a clear distinction between acquisition of
land and laying of high-tension transmission lines
over private land. The Division Bench has held that
in such a case there is no acquisition of the land
and the owner is entitled to seek compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
18. The facts of the present case are
squarely governed by the aforesaid principles.
Admittedly, no tower is proposed to be erected on
the petitioner’s property. The towers have already
been erected, or are proposed to be erected, on the
adjoining lands on either side of the petitioner’s
property. The respondents intend only to draw the
high-tension transmission wires connecting the said
towers.
19. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s
contention that the respondents must first acquire
the property before drawing the transmission line
cannot be accepted. The absence of acquisition
does not, by itself, render the proposed action
illegal. Equally, the absence of consent of the
petitioner cannot constitute a ground to prevent the
exercise of statutory powers conferred upon the
respondents.
20. The reliance placed by the petitioner on
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India also does
not advance his case. Article 300-A protects a
person from deprivation of property except by
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
authority of law. In the present case, the
respondents are not claiming title to or possession
of the petitioner’s property. They are exercising a
statutory right of user for laying an overhead
transmission line. Such exercise, when traceable to
the authority conferred by law cannot be equated
with compulsory acquisition of the petitioner’s
proprietary interest.
21. At the same time, the statutory power
is not an unregulated power. The authorities are
required to cause as little damage as possible to the
property and the petitioner is entitled to
compensation for the damage, if any, caused by
reason of the exercise of such power. The right to
compensation is therefore distinct from the
question of acquisition of the land.
22. The contention that the petitioner’s
property would become practically unusable for
residential purposes also cannot be accepted at this
stage. The petitioner has not placed before this
Court any sanctioned layout, conversion order,
approved building plan or other material
establishing that the property is presently being
utilized for residential purposes or that an approved
development proposal would be frustrated by the
proposed transmission line. A mere assertion
regarding the future development potential of the
property cannot be a basis to interdict a statutory
transmission project undertaken in larger public
interest.
23. The respondents have placed on record
the alignment map and have specifically stated that
the towers are not situated on the petitioner’s land.
In the absence of any material demonstrating that
the alignment has been arbitrarily or illegally fixed,
this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot
substitute its own view for the technical decision of
the competent authority, particularly when the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
project concerns transmission of electricity and
public utility infrastructure.
24. The petitioner’s grievance regarding
compensation, if any damage is caused to the
property on account of laying and maintenance of
the transmission line, is required to be dealt with in
accordance with the statutory mechanism. The
petitioner cannot, without exhausting such remedy,
seek to stall the transmission project.
25. The Division Bench in Power Grid
Corporation of India Limited v. M/s Abhishek
Developers (supra) has specifically held, in
circumstances where towers are situated on
adjoining lands and the transmission line is merely
drawn over the intervening private property, that
the owner cannot obstruct the drawing of the high-
tension line and that the appropriate remedy is to
seek compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885.
26. Therefore, the submission of the
petitioner that the respondents ought to approach
the Deputy Commissioner for permission before
drawing the transmission line, merely because the
petitioner has objected, cannot be accepted. The
statutory scheme does not contemplate that the
consent of the owner is a prerequisite in every case
where transmission lines are drawn over private
property.
27. The reliance placed by the petitioner
upon the possibility of residential development also
cannot alter the legal position. The entitlement to
compensation, if otherwise established, has to be
determined with reference to the applicable
statutory principles and the actual damage caused.
The mere apprehension of diminution in the future
development potential of the property cannot confer
a right upon the petitioner to prevent the exercise
of statutory powers in larger public interest.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
28. Consequently, this Court finds no
illegality in the notice dated 14.06.2024 issued by
respondent No.4 warranting interference under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
29. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) However, it is made clear that the
dismissal of the writ petition shall
not preclude the petitioner from
seeking compensation for any
actual damage caused to the
property on account of laying,
maintenance or use of the
transmission line, in accordance
with the provisions of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
(iii) If the petitioner is dissatisfied
with the compensation
determined by the competent
authority, it is open to him to
avail the remedy available under
Section 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
(iv) Insofar as the prayer seeking a
direction to respondent No.1 to
consider the representation dated
04.09.2024 is concerned, no
separate direction is warranted in
view of the statutory remedy
available to the petitioner for
determination of compensation.”
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Shri J.S. Shetty, would submit that the land of
the petitioner, though not used for laying down the towers
of transmission, but the transmission line of 110 kV is
passing through the land of the appellant, which is his only
source of income and measures about 1 acre 35 guntas.
The single circuit transmission line is passing through the
land of the appellant.
5. The observations of the learned Single Judge
would take away the right of the appellant even to object
to the lines being drawn on the land of the appellant, as
the order restricts the appellant's claim to compensation
only, which according to the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant is contrary to Section 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, Shri Shivaraj P.Mudool, on instructions, would
submit that if the objections to the application is filed
before the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
grievances, the Deputy Commissioner would examine the
same and the proceedings would be taken further thereon.
7. In the light of the said submission, we deem it
appropriate, in the peculiar facts of this case, to permit the
appellant to file an application before the Deputy
Commissioner raising those objections that are now
sought to be projected before us, with a direction to the
Deputy Commissioner to consider the same and pass
necessary orders in accordance with law.
8. The learned counsel submits that the particular
provisions of the Act must be borne in mind. It is needless
to observe that the proceedings to be considered in
accordance with law would encompass all those
submissions that the learned counsel for the appellant
would now seek to project before us.
9. In that light, the order of the learned Single
Judge is modified to the extent that the appellant is
entitled to submit an application/objections before the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
Deputy Commissioner on the issue, and the Deputy
Commissioner shall pass necessary orders considering the
contents of the application in accordance with law.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ appeal stands disposed of.
(ii) The appellant shall submit a
representation/objection before the
Deputy Commissioner within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(iii) The Deputy Commissioner shall consider
the same and pass necessary orders
within four weeks thereafter, bearing in
mind the observations made in the course
of this order.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18406-DB
WA No. 101018 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020196502026
(iv) The rights of the respondent also remain
reserved to take action in accordance with
law.
(v) In next six weeks, no precipitative action
qua the land of the petitioner shall be
taken by the respondents.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
VNP/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25