Karnataka HC Directs Power Connections For 31 Ganjigatti Homes Within 60 Days, Subject To Checks For Overlap With Hakku-Patra Sites

The petitioners in W.P. No. 106631 of 2026 occupied dwelling structures on part of Government land in Sy. No. 71, Ganjigatti, and sought electricity connections.

They relied, among other things, on a Gram Panchayat communication expressing no objection to supply.

In the connected petition, the petitioners claimed that sites in the same survey number had been allotted to them under the Ashraya Yojana in 1991–1997 and that Hakkupatras had been issued, but they had not received physical possession or basic amenities.

The parties disputed whether the occupied land and the sites claimed under the Hakkupatras overlapped; the Court considered that this required identification by the competent authorities.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The connected petition also referred to a notification issued under Section 5 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The Court stated no specific statutory test or precedent; its directions turned on the need for the authorities to identify the respective areas of occupation and the sites claimed under the Hakkupatras before resolving the related claims.

The Court noted that the electricity authority had no objection in principle to providing connections, while the competing claims concerned whether the occupants’ land overlapped with sites covered by the Hakkupatras.

Because the occupants were in possession but lacked Hakkupatras, and the Hakkupatra holders had not received possession, the Court left identification and demarcation to the competent authorities rather than deciding the parties’ land claims itself.

It therefore permitted electricity connections subject to the specified identification process and directed the authorities to consider the Hakkupatra holders’ representation.

The Court did not determine the notification’s validity or the proposed revenue-village declaration.

W.P. No. 108751 of 2025 was partly allowed: the specified authorities were directed to consider the petitioners’ representation in light of the Hakkupatras and communicate the action taken within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Court made no order on the proposed revenue-village declaration, which remains subject to determination of the petitioners’ claims.