The alignment of high-tension electricity transmission lines is a technical determination falling within the domain of experts and public authorities. Private landowners cannot obstruct such projects on the ground of alternative routes; their remedy is limited to seeking statutory compensation under the law of eminent domain.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/01/2026 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO. MAG(5)CR:47/2025/968884/C6 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE M) TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, whereby the objection of the petitioner against drawing of 400 KV high tension transmission line through his property has been rejected and permission has been granted to proceed with the project.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the converted land bearing Survey No.416/4 and 416/6, measuring 2131.64 square meters situated at Vittal Village, Bantwal Taluk, acquired under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.2023. The lands were duly converted for non-agricultural use and a single site approval plan and building licence have also been obtained and construction of the commercial building has commenced. Subsequently, it is stated that the respondents propose to draw 400 KV overhead transmission lines across his property as part of the Udupi-Kasargod Road project. The petitioner filed objection and suggested alternative alignment through adjacent government land and other available properties. It is stated that earlier in W.P. No.21589/2025, this Court directed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings before the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed detailed objections and documents before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. However, by the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 the objections were rejected and approval was granted to proceed with the project.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to Section 10 (1) (d) and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandate causing minimal damage and considering objections independently. It is submitted that the authority failed to consider a feasible alternative alignment, despite the availability of adjacent government land and the consent of other landowners. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has misdirected himself by relying on the earlier proceedings and wrongfully concluded that the issue stood concluded. Learned counsel further submits that the findings that the towers has already been installed are factually incorrect, as the project has not commenced in the vicinity.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on decisions to contend that the respondents are required to strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and obtain adjudication by the competent authority before proceeding further.

i. Sri Ramesh and others Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., and another ¹W.P. No.17052/2013 c/w W.P. No.31847-31892/2013 D.D. 14.08.2017 (Ramesh), whereby the writ petitions were disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the KPTCL and directing the authority to proceed in accordance with law under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

ii. Smt. Khushboo Bansal Vs. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited and others ²W.P. No.25137/2023 D.D. 28.11.2023 (Khushboo Bansal) wherein t