Karnataka HC Sends Banavasi Farmers’ Power-Line Dispute Back, Ordering Check If Nearby “Jungle” Land Could Reroute Lines From Their Fields

The petitioners challenged the proposed routing of transmission lines for a 110/11 KV electricity sub-station through their lands in Sy. Nos. 159/1A, 159/3 and 157/1 at Banavasi.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court had directed consideration of whether an alternative route was feasible.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected the petitioners’ request, relying on the Executive Engineer’s report concerning cost, delay and forest-clearance requirements, without determining whether alternative land was available.

The petitioners then identified Sy. No. 165, north of their lands, as a possible alternative and disputed whether it was notified forest land.

The earlier proceedings referred to Sections 10, 11 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in considering the authorities’ powers concerning the electric line and the petitioners’ ability to object to its route.

In the present proceeding, the Court’s operative reasoning rested on the prior direction to consider a feasible alternative route and on the requirement that the Deputy Commissioner verify the relevant facts—including alternative land availability and the asserted forest status—before deciding the request.

The Court did not set out or apply a separate statutory test in its final order.

The Deputy Commissioner’s order relied on the Executive Engineer’s report but did not show that the Deputy Commissioner had inspected the site, assessed alternative land, or examined the feasibility of realignment, as contemplated by the earlier proceedings.

The petitioners specifically raised the possibility of using Sy. No. 165 and disputed that it was notified forest land; KPTCL’s senior counsel acknowledged that this aspect had not been ascertained.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the matter required factual verification and reconsideration rather than acceptance of the existing report alone.

The Deputy Commissioner must verify the status and availability of Sy. No. 165, examine the feasibility of realigning the line with the Executive Engineer of KPTCL, give the parties an opportunity to be heard and, if necessary, inspect the site.

An appropriate order must be passed within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy.

All contentions were kept open.