DIANA B. COELHO AND MRS. CARMAN COELHO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (KPTCL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second round of litigation between the parties. W.P. No. 22406/2011 filed by the petitioners was allowed in part on 30.06.2011. While setting aside the impugned order therein, respondent No. 1 was directed to reconsider the matter and pass order on the application filed - by the 2nd respondent on 22.03.2011, to which the petitioners had filed statement of objections. Though the petitioners filed further statement of objections, the 1st respondent having allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent and permitted the execution of the project work of drawing of power lines on the petitioners' lands, vide an order dated 17.01.2012, as at Annexure -N, these writ petitions have been filed. The 2nd respondent having filed statement of objections on 21.02.2012, this Court having directed the 2nd respondent to find out whether there could be any deviation of land by drawing the line by erecting the towers at the extreme western side of the property of the petitioners, a spot inspection having been undertaken on 11.04.2012 and proceedings having been drawn, additional written statement of objections was filed by the 2nd respondent on 20.06.2012.

(2.) SRI D.L. Jagadeesh, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that in the statement of objections filed before the 1st respondent, petitioners having made clear that they have no objection to use the border of their land to erect electricity line, instead of using the midst of the property, which has already been converted to non -agricultural use, the 1st respondent has arbitrarily permitted the 2nd respondent to erect the electricity towers in the middle of the petitioners' property. He submitted that the decision of the 1st respondent, vide order at Annexure -N is arbitrary, illegal and hence, warrants interference.

(3.) PERUSED the writ record. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is, whether the decision of the 1st respondent as at Annexure -N is arbitrary?