Karnataka HC Lets Bhatkal Landowner Object to 110-kV Line, Bars Precipitative Action on His Land for Six Weeks

The appellant’s land, measuring approximately 1 acre 35 guntas, was to be crossed by a 110 kV transmission line, although no tower was proposed on his property.

After respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated 14 June 2024, the appellant challenged it in W.P. No. 106264 of 2024. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant’s remedy was compensation for damage and, if dissatisfied with its determination, recourse under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

The appellant appealed.

Respondents’ counsel submitted that the Deputy Commissioner would examine objections filed by the appellant.

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, authorises the exercise of statutory powers to place and maintain transmission lines without acquisition of the land as a precondition; Section 10(d) requires that as little damage as possible be caused and compensation be paid for damage sustained.

The Single Judge also relied on Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143, and the Division Bench decision in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. M/s Abhishek Developers, W.A. Nos. 1203 of 2022 and connected matter, for the distinction between acquisition and a statutory right of user, and for the availability of compensation.

Section 16 of the Telegraph Act provides a remedy where the landowner is dissatisfied with compensation determined.

The Division Bench did not determine the substantive merits of the appellant’s objections or displace the Single Judge’s general findings on statutory authority and compensation.

In light of the respondents’ submission that the Deputy Commissioner would examine the appellant’s grievances, the Court considered it appropriate to permit the appellant to present those objections to that authority, including the submissions raised before the appellate Court.

It therefore modified the Single Judge’s order to that limited extent and restrained precipitative action concerning the land for six weeks.

The Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider it and pass necessary orders within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law.

The respondents’ right to act in accordance with law was reserved, but no precipitative action concerning the appellant’s land was to be taken for six weeks.