AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners 12 in number, led by Mr. D.M.Halappa and 11 others, have filed these writ petitions in this Court on 02.01.2018 against the
Respondents-KPTCL and private Respondents 4 to 8 namely, Mr.Gowdara Mahadevappa, Mr.Karehanumanthappa, Ms. Kenchamma, Mr.
Murigayya and Mr.Theerathappa, with the following prayers:-
(i) Quash the notification dated 13-12- 2013 bearing No. KaEn (Vi) BruKaVi/ SaKaE (Vi)/ KiEn (Vi)/ Da/13-14/3067-69
published Vijayavani Kannada daily newspaper vide Annexure-B by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 by issuing a Writ of Certiorari in so
far as the project of construction of 66 KV LILO line for a route length of 6.04 kms from the 66 KV Davangere-Lingadahalli line in
the proposed 66/11 KV Shaygale (Lokikere) Sub-Station in Davangere Taluk and Davangere District at sl.no.3 over ''petitioners''
properties'' is concerned.
(ii) Quash the notification dated 13-12- 2013 bearing No. EEE/AEE(O)/JE(E)/ MWD/ DVG/13-14/ Notification /3067-69
published in Deccan Herald daily English newspaper vide Annexure-C by the respondent nos.1 and 3 by issuing a Writ of Certiorari
so far as the project of construction of 66 KV LILO line for a route length of 6.04 kms from the 66 KV Davangere- Lingadahalli line
in the proposed 66/11 KV Shaygale (Lokikere) Sub-Station in Davangere Taluk and Davangere District at sl.no.3 over ''petitioners''
properties'' is concerned.
(iii) Quash the Notification dated 13/11/2013 published in Gazette Notification on 6-2-2014 vide Annexure-D issued by the
respondent No.3 by issuing a Writ of Certiorari in so far as the project of construction of 66 KV LILO line for a route length of 6.04
kms from the 66 KV Davangere-Lingadahalli line in the proposed 66/11 KV Shaygale (Lokikere) Sub-Station in Davangere Taluk
and Davangere District at sl.no.3 over ''petitioners properties'' is concerned.
(iv) Quash the order dated 27-11-2017 bearing no.M.A.Ji.(3) CR:28/2016-17 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-Q by
issuing a Writ of Certiorari.
(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or direction directing the respondent not to draw HT (High Tension) lines over
''petitioners'' properties'' is concerned.
(vi) Direct the respondent to pay the costs of this petition and grant such other and further reliefs as are just"".
The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.M.V.Vedamurthy has urged before the Court that the Respondent-KPTCL in the Notification for
laying down the 66/11 KV Electric Power Transmission Line in the Notice published on 13.11.2013 did not specify the exact lands through which
the said Transmission lines were to pass and therefore, the petitioners were deprived of their opportunity to file their objections against the said
Power Transmission Lines which is now sought to be constructed and drawn through their agricultural lands and the petitioners have also not been
paid any compensation so far in this regard.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is satisfied that the writ petitions are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed.
A bare perusal of the Notice published on 13.11.2013 Annexure-D itself clearly shows that in different parts of the said Notice, the names of
the villages have been given by the Respondents-KPTCL through which the said 66/11 KV Transmission line was to pass. The villages like
Kuppadahalli, Hulikunte, Bilichodu, Kerebilachi, Channagiri etc., are duly mentioned in the said Notice. Therefore, the Notice published by the
Respondent-KPTCL cannot be said to be non specific or vague.
The public projects of drawing of Transmission lines cannot be interfered with by the Courts on such vague averments at such belated stages. If
the petitioners lands are being used for such Power Transmission lines, the petitioners, of course, have a right to claim compensation for the loss
caused to them for the part of land of which they are deprived in the course of setting up of the Power Transmission lines, but the remedy for the
petitioners in such circumstances lies either to raise their objections and claim of compensation before the concerned Land Acquisition Officer or
the concerned authorities of KPTCL and in case, they are not satisfied, then they may approach the civil Court for establishing their respective
claims for such compensation. The said exercise cannot be undertaken in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The writ petitions are therefore misconceived and the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.