Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22326
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RAVI V HOSMANI, J
SRI. D.M.GOPAL GOWDA S/O VENKATADASAPPA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 26919 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI SHRIPAD GANGADHAR HEGDE
For the Respondents: SMT. WAHEEDA, SRI H.V. DEVARAJU
Legal processes initiated must have prior notification as per statutory requirements, otherwise they are deemed illegal.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 - Writ petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated by respondents concerning overhead transmission lines installation - Petitioners contended that their land was not included in the notification, hence proceedings illegal. Court acknowledged that the original notification did not include the petitioners' village but later notification did. (Paras 2 - 8)
(B) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 16(1) - Petitioners objected to the installation as prior notification did not include their village; Court ruled procedures to be illegal regarding earlier actions taken before the new notification was issued. (Paras 6 - 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners owned agricultural land and were approached regarding electricity transmission lines installation, which they contested due to lack of prior notification for their village. Legal submissions were presented regarding the legitimacy of the initiated proceedings.
Findings of Court:
Proceedings initiated against the petitioners were quashed based on improper notification and legal grounds.
Issues: The primary issue was whether proper notification was provided for the overhead transmission lines legally.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that initial proceedings were illegal as the notification for the petitioners' land was issued post-initiation, rendering earlier actions void.
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court reviewed submissions of both parties. (Para 5) |
| 2. challenging legality of proceedings based on notification. (Para 6) |
| 3. quashing proceedings due to prior notifications. (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
Challenging proceedings in case no.MAG/CR/01/2025, MAG/CR/03/2025, MAG/CR/04/2025, MAG/CR/05/2025 and MAG/CR/06/2025 at Annexures-A1 to A5 initiated by respondent no.1 and seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondents no.2 and 3 not to implement project without approval of DPR, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri Shripad Hegde, learned counsel for petitioners submitted, petitioners were owners of land bearing Survey no.33/2, 10/5, 57/2, 7/4 and 9/4 situated at Muddalinganahalli village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, and petitioners were cultivating said lands. When respondents no.2 and 3 approached them for installation of 66 KV Overhead Transmission Lines from Dabaspet Sub-station to DoddaBelavangala Sub-station. When petitioners opposed same, respondents no.2 and 3 approached respondent no.1 for removal of obstruction. In pursuance of same, proceedings at Annexures-A1 to A5 were initiated and petitioners were notified. But, on verification, it was found that Notification dated 10.03.2021 at Annexure-E, notifying villages through which overhead transmission lines were supposed to pass, did not include Muddalinganahalli village. Therefore, impugned proceedings initiated insofar as petitioners' lands would be illegal. Aggrieved thereby, present writ petition is filed.
3. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel directed to accept notice for respondents no.2 and 3, on instructions, filed memo producing copy of Gazatte Notification dated 17.05.2025 and paper publication to substantiate that Muddalinganahalli village was later included in Notification dated 17.05.2025. It was submitted, as there was obstruction while laying transmission lines, they had approached respondent no.1-District Magistrate, on 28.04.2025 as per Annexures-J series, under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 ('Act' for short) for removal of obstruction. Therefore, there was sufficient justification for respondent no.1 to have initiated proceedings and sought for dismissal of writ petition.
4. Learned AGA would second submission.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
6. From above, it is seen, petitioners' grievance against proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 against petitioners under Section 16(1) of Act, is mainly on ground that petitioners' village was not notified for drawing of overhead transmission lines. Indeed perusal of Notification dated 10.03.2021 at Annexure-E would reveal that Muddalinganahalli village is not included. Though learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 has today filed subsequent Gazette Notification dated 17.05.2025, which includes Muddalinganahalli village, same is dated 17.05.2015 and gazatted on 09.06.2025 whereas petition under Section 16(1) of Act at Annexure-J series was filed on 28.04.2025 by respondents.
7. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 fairly submitted that date of filing of Annexure-J series was prior to issuance of notification dated 09.06.2025. Consequently, proceedings would be illegal. Therefore, on said ground, petitioners would be entitled to succeed insofar as proceedings at Annexures-A1 to A5.
