Petition: Justice for Farmers Affected by the Udupi–Kasaragod 400 kV Transmission Line (UKTL Project)
To: The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka The Hon'ble Minister of Power, Government of India The Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District The Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District The Member of Parliament, Dakshina Kannada The Member of Legislative Assembly, Bantwal Constituency The Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power The Chairman, Udupi-Kasaragod Transmission Limited (UKTL) / Sterlite Power

Subject: Petition demanding a halt to unilateral construction, fair market-value compensation, and accountability from UKTL for the 400 kV Udupi–Kasaragod Transmission Line project affecting farmers of Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, and Udupi districts.

 
We, the undersigned farmers, landowners, and residents of Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada, and Udupi districts, submit this petition to bring to your urgent attention the following facts and demands.
The Project
The Udupi-Kasaragod Transmission Limited (UKTL), a private special-purpose vehicle now owned by Sterlite Power, is constructing a 115 km, 400 kV double-circuit high-tension transmission line running through 27 villages across Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, and into Kasaragod (Kerala). The project is being built and will be operated by UKTL on a Build-Own-Operate-Maintain basis for 35 years, funded in part by a ₹580 crore loan from REC Ltd.

This is not a local electrification project
UKTL's own project documentation shows that the power carried by this line is allocated across multiple states: Karnataka receives only 36.71% of the benefit, while Telangana (20.64%), Tamil Nadu (17.1%), Andhra Pradesh (15.92%), Kerala (8.32%), Puducherry (1.1%), and Goa (0.21%) share the rest. This is an interstate commercial grid asset built to serve industrial and grid-stability needs across South India — not a scheme to bring power to the villages whose farmland, trees, and homes are being permanently burdened for it. Farmers in Arala, Mijar, Karkala, Bantwal, and dozens of other villages are bearing the cost of infrastructure whose benefit flows overwhelmingly elsewhere.

The Problems We Have Faced
No meaningful consent or consultation. As of October 2024, less than 1% of affected farmers had received formal written notices, despite the scale of consultation expected before a project of this size proceeds. Over 200 protests have been held across the route, and multiple gram panchayats have passed resolutions opposing the line.
Grossly inadequate compensation offers. Farmers have been offered as little as ₹2,500–3,500 per cent for land that sells locally for ₹45,000–60,000 per cent — a fraction of true market value. Karnataka High Court case law (KPTCL v. Doddakka and related judgments) establishes that fruit-bearing trees like coconut and areca must be compensated using a yield-based multiplier method, and that corridor land is entitled to 30–50% of market value in addition to 100% for tower-base land — standards UKTL's offers routinely fall short of.
Forcible entry and destruction of property before compensation is settled. In multiple instances, UKTL and its contractors have entered land and felled standing, income-generating trees — coconut, areca, and others — without prior notice, without joint assessment, and without any compensation being paid, let alone agreed. This is happening even in cases where landowners have formally objected in writing and disputes remain unresolved.
Massive, undercounted ecological damage. Community estimates place the toll at roughly 2.65 lakh arecanut trees, over 1 lakh coconut trees, 4.5 lakh pepper vines, 1.5 lakh rubber trees, tens of thousands of jackfruit and mango trees, and lakhs of other trees — along with 328 homes, dozens of temples, mosques, churches, and daivasthanas, and multiple schools falling within the project corridor.
Route deviations and procedural violations. Protesters and farmer groups (including the Virodhi Horata Samithi) have alleged that UKTL has deviated from the Union government-approved alignment in Bantwal and Karkala, and have raised unresolved questions about Airport Authority of India tower-height clearances near Mijar and Edapadavu.
Pending environmental clearances. As of January 2025, clearance from the Karnataka Forest Department for large-scale tree felling remained pending in several stretches. A further legal challenge in August 2025 alleges Phase 2 of the project (Padubidri–Kasaragod) is proceeding without mandatory environmental and biodiversity clearances, with an estimated 1.78 lakh additional trees at risk.
Widespread Right-of-Way disputes. The Central Electricity Authority's own December 2024 report found unresolved Right of Way disputes at 128 of 177 tower sites in Karnataka — meaning the overwhelming majority of tower locations remain contested.
Unaddressed health and safety concerns. Residents living near the alignment have repeatedly raised concerns about long-term exposure to high-voltage electromagnetic fields. No independent, community-verified health impact study has been shared with the public to date.
What the Courts Have Already Said
In Writ Appeal No. 560 of 2023 (GM-KEB), the Karnataka High Court held that the project may proceed in the larger public interest — but explicitly preserved every affected landowner's right to seek enhanced, fair compensation for land, crop, and tree loss, and made clear that UKTL is not exempted from securing all other statutory and environmental approvals. UKTL's own reliance on this and similar rulings to justify unilateral entry does not extend to skipping compensation, assessment, or consent processes.

Our Demands
We respectfully demand that the concerned authorities:

Direct an immediate, verifiable halt to any further tree-felling, tower construction, or entry onto disputed land parcels until compensation is mutually settled and paid in full.
Order an independent, joint assessment — with farmer representatives present — of all trees, crops, and structures already destroyed, and fair, yield-based compensation for the same.
Mandate compensation at true market rate, based on the highest genuine recent sale deeds in each village, not on outdated District Collector notional rates or UKTL's unilateral offers.
Require UKTL to complete all pending environmental and forest clearances before any further felling or construction, and to publicly disclose these clearances village-by-village.
Investigate and resolve the alleged route deviations in Bantwal and Karkala, and clarify the tower-height approvals near Mijar and Edapadavu.
Establish a transparent, time-bound grievance redressal mechanism, jointly monitored by the Deputy Commissioners of Udupi and Dakshina Kannada, so that no further construction proceeds at any of the 128 disputed tower sites without resolving the underlying dispute.
Commission an independent health and environmental impact study on long-term EMF exposure for residents living within the transmission corridor, with results made public.
Explore underground cabling alternatives in the most densely cultivated and populated stretches of the route, as repeatedly proposed by affected communities.
We are not opposed to national infrastructure or the power needs of the region. We are opposed to being asked to permanently sacrifice our land, our trees, our livelihoods, and our safety — for a project whose benefits flow mostly to industries and grids far from our villages — without fair compensation, due process, or a genuine voice in the decision.

We urge the Government of Karnataka, the Ministry of Power, and UKTL/Sterlite Power to act on this petition without further delay.

Jai Tulunad, Jai Kisan, Jai Bharat.

 
This petition is prepared on behalf of affected farmers and landowners of Arala, Mijar, Karkala, Bantwal, and other villages along the Udupi–Kasaragod transmission corridor, Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts, Karnataka.

Note on sources: The facts above are drawn from Karnataka High Court records, Central Electricity Authority reports, and reporting by The Hindu, Deccan Herald, The South First, Daijiworld, Mangalorean.com, and Land Conflict Watch, among others. Figures on trees/structures affected vary slightly across sources and should be independently verified by petition organisers before formal submission or media use, especially where used as sworn statements.