ORDER
1. The petitioners the owner of 6 acres and 26 guntas of land in S. Nos. 156/1, 156/2 of Karekatiahalli village, Gowribidanur Taluk, Kolar District. He applied to the Tahsildar, Gowribidanur Taluk for permission to divert the said agricultural land for non-agricultural use, to wit, to form a lay out for building sites. He has asserted the lay-out plan is as shown in Annexure-B, the sketch. Though the exact date on which the application for conversion was made is not disclosed, permission appears to have been given on 27-10-1986 for diverting the land for such non-agricultural use- as is evident from Annexure-A to the petition.
2. Annexure-C is a representation made by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Electricity Board, Major Works Circle, Bangalore, bearing the date 18-6-1986. In that representation he has stated that he has formed a lay-out in S. Nos. 156/1 and 156/2 of Karekallahalli village with much difficulty incurring heavy expenditure. To his surprise, he came to know that a link line passing through his lands in the two survey numbers would result in fragmentation of his, hope and confidence (learned Counsel submits that fragmentation of his hope and confidence is a typographical error, it should be read as frustration). He also asserted in the representation that he applied for conversion of his lands for non-agricultural purposes ‘to form lay-outs’ for building sites and that the said application was under the active consideration of the authorities. He also represented that he is required to pay Rs. 10/per sq. yard as a betterment tax to the municipality which would amount to about Rs. 1,25,000/- approximately. He also pointed out that his land at the other end had already got a line crossing which is marked AB in Annexure-B to the petition. Therefore, he prayed to avoid him hardship, the present surveyed line had to be deviated and shifted. There is a suggestion that the lines have been strung despite his protests and requests.
3. It was replied to by the Executive Engineer by his letter dated 8thJuly, 1986 as is evidenced by Annexure-D to the petition. He was informed that the link transmission lines were connecting the new receiving station which was established to cater to the increased demand of Gowribidanur and surrounding areas at a cost of nearly 5.5 crores. The development actually benefited a number of consumers and also public at large and therefore he should bear with the developmental programmes of Karnataka Electricity Board in the larger interests of the public and as such the alignment of the transmission lines would have to stand and could not be shifted.
4. Thereafter on 13-2-1987 he has filed the writ petition inter alia contending that there has been violation of his rights and the respondent-Karnataka Electricity Board has acted in excess of its authority. Therefore, this court should issue direction to the Board to remove those lines and shift it elsewhere which would not obstruct his lands.
5. This Court issued notice regarding rule on 17-2-1987. The Ist respondent-Karnataka Electricity Board entered appearance and filed its statement of objections, as claimed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Board. He has further claimed an additional statement of objections along with an application had been filed. Both of them have not yet formed part of the records. However, while dictating the order, the learned Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the objections had been filed on 24-3-1987. A perusal of the copy supplied, indicates that the scheme for establishing 220/66 K. V. Station at Gowribidanur was finalised as long back as 22-12-1984 at a cost of Rs. 22. 11 Lakhs. They have asserted that the land: 3 in question are revenue lands. They have asserted that the pylons of the towers are already fixed on the lands in question. In laying the transmission line the towers are laid on either side of land belonging to the petitioner. The formation of the scheme and approval of the scheme and laying of the transmission fine had been carried out well before the petitioner took action to convert the aforesaid agricultural lands for the purpose of alleged residential sites. Therefore, the Board that power would have to obtain the order of contends that it cannot be held responsible the Deputy Commissioner or the District for any loss that is caused to the owner of the Magistrate to remove such obstruction land, the petitioner.
6. There are other assertions in regard to the nature of the lines drawn with which one need not be seriously concerned. The Board has denied that the petitioner is entitled to any interim relief.
7. By the additional statement, it is asserted that the line is now completed, apparently after notice of the writ petition. I do not think it is necessary to advert to any other fact.
8. The short question argued by Mr. VijayKumar is that S. 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S. 16 of the aforesaid Act would clearly render the action of the Karnataka Electricity Board illegal, not having obtained the order of the District Magistrate, having regard to the obstruction in accordance with the procedure laid down in S. 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. In support of that contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Kerala High Court (F.B.) in the case of Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum, . In that case similar contentions and counter-contentions were raised. The owner of the land had previously known about the proposed drawing of the fine through his land. It was in that circumstance the Full Bench came to the conclusion that the word obstruction occurring in S. 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 should be liberally construed so as to give it a wider meaning than mere physical obstruction. Any tangible or identifiable, obstruction would also satisfy the requirement of S. 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. In other words, the Full Bench acceded to the argument that even a protest would tantamount to obstruction and therefore would attract the rigour of S. 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, and as mandated therein the authority concerned namely, the Telegraph Authority or as in the instant case and the Kerala case the electricity Board or licensee or its officer so delegated to exercise that power would have to obtain the order of the Deputy Commissioner or the District Magistrate to remove such obstruction.
9. In the Judgment their Lordships of the Kerala High Court have carefully reasoned out the need for such a construction. They have held that while the Board or the Telegraph Authority need not issue notice of its intention to draw the lines through the land of a particular owner, the District Magistrate when dealing with an application by the Authority under S. 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, must out of prudence notify the land owner it was in that context they held that even a protest would amount to obstruction.
10. Not disagreeing with the ratio of that decision this Court must record that the petitioner did obstruct though in a manner that would mislead not only this Court but also the Board. He had asserted that he had already laid out the building sites. But actually in very next paragraph of his representation he admitted that he had not done so but merely planned to do so. Then he had no more than requested for conversion or permission to divert the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes on the date of representation which had not yet been granted. Therefore, it was a mere apprehension of the possibilities of the lines being drawn through the land and not actually damaging a lay out which had been already laid out.
11. As is clear from the statement of objections, the lands on the relevant date were revenue lands and no more than that. In the Kerala case on the facts of that case the High Court directed the parties to approach the District Magistrate to obtain an order or an order refusing to issue an order to remove obstruction on the materials placed by the parties. If regard is had to the assertions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Board that would be a futile exercise because it is now claimed that the pylons have been erected on the lands of the petitioner and the lines drawn and energised. It is further claimed that any disruption of the supply line would adversely affect the public who are serviced by the energised lines.
12. While this Court does not approve the conduct of the Board in hurrying to complete the erection of the pylons and drawing of the lines through the land of the petitioner after notice of the writ petition, having regard to the public interest which is at a stake, has to reluctantly condone this act of not taking the Court to its confidence before completing and energising the lines. They should have been better advised to show due regard to the court.
13. Therefore, despite the illegality pointed out, this Court refrains from exercising its discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is therefore disposed of subject to the observation that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the relevant law as well as costs of this petition Advocate’s fee Rs. 250/-.
14. Order accordingly.