HUCCHAPPA NAGAPPA JADIYANNANAVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claiming to be public spirited citizens residing in the two villages of Hirekeruru Taluka, in Haveri District, have filed this Public Interest Litigation for laying a challenge to the Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 10/3/2020 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-F whereby a small extent of 4 Acres having been carved out from a large extent of 34A-21G in Sy. No.109 of Chinnamulugunda Village, has been granted to the 5th Respondent - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., for the 110-11 KV Electric Project. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, this grant has deprived the Villagers of grazing land without following due procedure and therefore, the same is liable to be voided, coupled with a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to consider their Representations at Annexures - G to G4 wherein cancellation of the said grant is sought for. Learned counsel also adds that despite the lapse of two years, the Project has not come up and thus, there is breach of the 1st Condition stipulated in the impugned order and therefore, the Grant should be rescinded.

(2.) Learned Addl. Government Advocate on request appearing for the official Respondents opposes the Writ Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. She points out that what has been allotted to the KPTCL is only a small portion of 04 Acres and that the remaining huge land left for the villagers is more than 30 Acres. She also points out enormous delay brooked in the matter with no explanation whatsoever offered by the petitioners therefor. Lastly, she contends that the public interest involved in the Project in question obviously outweighs the arguable one in this Writ Petition. She also explains that while computing the period of one year stipulated in the impugned order as a condition, stands elongated because Apex Court orders issued during the period of Covid-19 Pandemic and therefore, there is no breach of the same. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and we have perused the Petition papers. Having done that, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submissions made on behalf of official Respondents. Admittedly, the Grant of land is not to any private person nor for any private purpose. It is made for the purpose of establishing a Power Grid and allied structures by the 5th Respondent - KPTCL which happens to be a cent percent Government Company as defined under Sec. 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013. Apparently, it is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India in the light of decision of the Apex Court in R D SHETTY vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY LIMITED, AIR 1979 SC 1628. The Apex Court in DILIP vs SATISH and OTHERS, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 810, at Paragraph 9 has observed "It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived.." It hardly needs to be stated that the electricity happens to be the lifeblood of people, be they peasants, labourers, industrialists, businessmen or of any avocation.