- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35506 WP No. 8738 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 8738 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED., WORKS DEPARTMENT, P.B. ROAD, R. H. BUILDING, SECOND FLOOR, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HV DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.SHABEER SAB S/O SRI. GAFAR SAB, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT YAKKEGONDI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 530. …RESPONDENT (SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE K, DATED 08/11/2024 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC.NO.282/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35506 WP No. 8738 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 08.11.2024 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in C.Misc.no.282/2019 at Annexure-K, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent being owner of 1 Acre 34 guntas of land in Sy.no.39/6 situated at Yakkegondi village, Kasaba Hobli, Harihar Taluk, Davanagere District. In year 2006, petitioner drew 66 KV High Tension Line over respondent's land. Alleging that due to drawing of High tension lines, respondent had sustained damage to his crop, and suffered diminution of value of land, petition as per Annexure-A was filed before District Judge, Davanagere, in Misc.no.282/2019 under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short). 3. It was submitted, though petitioner herein appeared and filed objections opposing claim petition on ground that it was barred by limitation and led evidence to substantiate same, while passing impugned order learned District Judge ignored contents of Ex.R.2, which showed date of commissioning of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35506 WP No. 8738 of 2025 transmission line. Consequently, petition filed nearly 13 years after drawing of lines would be clearly barred by Limitation. Consequently, answering point no.2 in negative and allowing of petition awarding additional compensation would be contrary to law. 4. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. TP Kunhaliumma, reported in AIR 1977 SC 282, had held that period of limitation prescribed for filing of application/petition for damages under Section 16(3) of Act, would be three years as prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act. It was submitted, said judgment was followed by this Court in WP no.22208/2019 disposed of on 27.02.2024. Thus, impugned order would be unsustainable and prayed for allowing writ petition. 5. Perusal of writ petition would indicate that a specific ground about petition filed by respondent being barred by limitation has been urged. Yet, respondent is served and unrepresented. Therefore, matter is taken for disposal after hearing learned counsel for petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35506 WP No. 8738 of 2025 6. From above, it is seen, main ground on which petitioner is challenging order passed by learned District Judge is that drawing of Overhead Transmission Lines in instant case was in year 2005-06, completed on 24.08.2007 and line commissioned on 30.12.2006 as per Annexures-G - field report. It is also seen at Annexure-B in paras-11 (b) and (d) of objections. 7. Admittedly, petition for assessment of damages under Section 16(3) at Annexure-A was filed on 19.02.2019 as shown in award appended to impugned order at Annexure-K. Same is admittedly far beyond period of limitation of three years prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act. Even if period of Limitation is calculated from 22.09.2014, admitted to be date of drawing of transmission lines over respondent's land, petition would nevertheless be beyond three years held to be period of limitation for filing such petition as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in TP Kunhaliumma's case (supra). 8. Consequently, impugned order and award would be unsustainable. Therefore, writ petition is allowed; impugned order and award dated 08.11.2024 passed by II Addl. District - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35506 WP No. 8738 of 2025 and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in C.Misc.no.282/2019 at Annexure-K stands quashed, as barred by limitation. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44