Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
D.R. Girish —Appellant
Vs.
District Magistrate and others —Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 8392, 15276 and 19524 of 2000
Decided on : 15-01-2001
Indian Telegraph Act - Land Acquisition - Section 16 - [Land Acquisition] - [Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 10, Section 16] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empower the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts on any immovable property and provide for the resolution of disputes and compensation. The court held that the power conferred on the District Magistrate under Section 16 is in the nature of an order to be made in execution proceedings and that the District Magistrate is not required to go into the correctness or validity of the scheme for drawing electric lines. The court also emphasized that the District Magistrate is a high-ranking officer and is not required to be an expert in the matter of framing a scheme for drawing electric lines. The court rejected the challenge to Section 16 of the Act and quashed the impugned order, directing the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders in the light of the request made by the Corporation to remove the obstructions as provided under Section 16 of the Act in the light of the scheme proposed by it.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved petitions filed by landowners and a corporation challenging the correctness of an order passed by the District Magistrate regarding the erection of transmission towers on the land. The landowners objected to the realignment of the transmission line, while the corporation sought the removal of obstructions placed by the landowners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Magistrate's order directing the revision of the scheme proposed by the Corporation was not permissible, as the District Magistrate is not required to be an expert in the matter of framing a scheme for drawing electric lines. The court also emphasized that the District Magistrate's power under Section 16 is in the nature of an order to be made in execution proceedings and that the District Magistrate is not required to go into the correctness or validity of the scheme for drawing electric lines. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders in the light of the request made by the Corporation to remove the obstructions as provided under Section 16 of the Act in the light of the scheme proposed by it.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional, whether the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is liable to be quashed, and whether the notice issued by the District Magistrate is liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power conferred on the District Magistrate under Section 16 is in the nature of an order to be made in execution proceedings and that the District Magistrate is not required to go into the correctness or validity of the scheme for drawing electric lines. The court also emphasized that the District Magistrate is a high-ranking officer and is not required to be an expert in the matter of framing a scheme for drawing electric lines. The court rejected the challenge to Section 16 of the Act and quashed the impugned order, directing the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders in the light of the request made by the Corporation to remove the obstructions as provided under Section 16 of the Act in the light of the scheme proposed by it.
Final Decision: The court rejected the challenge to Section 16 of the Act and quashed the impugned order, directing the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders in the light of the request made by the Corporation to remove the obstructions as provided under Section 16 of the Act in the light of the scheme proposed by it.
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.—Since all these petitions are connected, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.
2. Writ Petition No. 8392 of 2000 is filed by one D.R. Girish who is the owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 93/2 and 94 situated at Laxmipura village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. In the said petition, the Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 22nd of February, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Bangalore District, in MSC.CR. No. 3 of 2000-2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to the said writ petition.
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15276 of 2000 is the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"). In this petition, the Corporation also has called in question the correctness of the order Annexure-E.
4. In Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2000, one Paramahamsa Foundation Trust (R) is the Petitioner. In the said petition, the Petitioner has made three prayers. Firstly, it has prayed for a declaration that Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is unconstitutional; secondly, for quashing the notice dated 4th May, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to the said writ petition; and thirdly, for a direction for appointment of an independent Expert in the field and with the assistance of the experts of the Corporation, to find alternate route by surveying the land of the Petitioner and other neighbouring lands for the purpose of drawing the proposed High Tension Wire.
5. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2000 appears to be the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 59, 60 and 61 and several other items of lands, which in all measure about 30 acres.
6. The few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of these petitions may be set out as hereunder:
(a) The Corporation had sponsored a Scheme known as "Establishing 220/66 KVA Sub-station at Malur and construction of 220 KVS Double Circuit transmission line from Somanahalli to Malur". The said Scheme was published in 'Prajavani' Newspaper dated 2nd of December, 1996. It is the case of the Corporation that the total cost of the Project was estimated at Rs. 3,355 lakhs (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred and fifty five lakhs) and the same was financed by the Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi; and the work was required to be completed within the contract period as otherwise the Finance Corporation was likely to withdraw the loan facilities extended to the Corporation; and the total length of 220 KV Double circuit transmission line covers about 60 Km., and the said transmission line is from the existing 220 KVS receiving Station at Somanahalli to the proposed 220 KVS Station at Malur in Kolar District; and the said Scheme has been sponsored with an intention to benefit the Rural District and also some of the portions of the Bangalore District, so that it may improve the voltage system of the entire Kolar District; and the Project Work is being carried on by the Major Works Divisions of the Karnataka Electricity Board from both the ends and the total number of locations where the towers had to be erected is 235; and both the Major Works Divisions of the Corporation have already stubbed and erected 113 Towers; and Location No. 58 where the Tower is to be erected falls on the property of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2000 (i.e., Paramahamsa Foundation Trust (Registered)); and the Tower at Location No. 58 has already been stubbed; and four legs have been concreted and the super structure has also been completed except drawing up of the conductors (lines); and out of four legs, two legs of the tower at Location No. 59 fall in the property of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19524 of 2000 (i.e., Paramahamsa Foundation Trust Registered) and other two legs of the tower fall outside the property of the said Petitioner; and in so far as t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
