IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23632 OF 2018 (GM-TEL)

BETWEEN:

HERALD FELIX MONTEIRO S/O JOKIM MONTIERO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

6D, DELTA COURT S.L.MATHAIS ROAD FALNIR, MANGALORE-575 001 DISTRICT D.K …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DAKSHINA KANNADA Digitally DC COMPOUND signed by MANGALURU, D.K.

SUMA B N Location :

2. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED HIGH COURT OF REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA (ELECTRICAL)

HEAVY WORKS DIVISION KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LTD.

KAVOORU, MANGALURU D.K-575015.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 07.09.2017 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, D.K. MANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is by owner of the land bearing Sy.No.55/2 and 55/3 situated in Kudupu Village (Shakthinagar), Mangalore Taluk, D.K being aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner. In terms of which, the respondent No.2 has been permitted to draw High Tension Electrical line over the aforesaid lands of the petitioner and also for the purpose of putting up Tower Nos.23 to 25 thereon.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the record submits that the very order passed by the respondent No.1 permitting erection of towers over the lands of the petitioner which eventually consumes an area of not less than 4,000 square feet, is contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for brevity 'Act'). In terms of which there is no provision for erection of tower and that Section 3(5) of the Act only speaks about erection of pole which would not consume the area as it would, if a tower is erected.

3. He submits that considerable portion of land in Sy.No.55/2 of the petitioner has already been utilized for the purpose of providing access to Ashraya houses. Further, deprivation of property by the respondent/authority, that too, without adequate payment of compensation would result in complete deprivation of the utilised property by the petitioner.

Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submits that total number of towers proposed are 50 of which 38 towers have already been completed. That the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.55/2 falls in the surveyed area identified and determined for the purpose of erection of Tower No.23. But for the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent/authority would have completed the project by now. On the contention of payment of adequate compensation, he files a memo dated 28.01.2026 furnishing the Judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court and the Guidelines issued by the Central Government, which are as under;

1. 2007(6) SCC 792- Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Livisha and others;

2. ILR 2015 KAR 677, The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, Chitradurga and Another vs. Doddakka;

3. Guidelines for Compensation towards damages dated 15.10.2015;

4. 2017(5) SCC 143- Power Grid Corporation of India vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited and others;

5. W.P.No.113268/2019 along with connected Writ Petitions decided on 11.04.2022- The Chief Engineer, KPTCL and others vs. Gangappa;

6. W.A.No.100366/2022 along with connected Writ Appeals decided on 20.06.2023- The Chief Engineer, KPTCL and others vs. Gangappa;

7. W.A.No.1375/2024 decided on 21.07.2025 -

Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), KPTCL vs.

Sri. Doddathimmappa and others;

8. Civil Appeal Nos.10882-10888/2025, Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., vs. Vinod and Others;

9. Law Commissioner Report;

5. Referring to pa