- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38379 WP No. 20398 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 20398 OF 2025 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED., MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT, P.B. ROAD, R. H. BUILDING, SECOND FLOOR, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI DEVARAJU H V., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O. SRI. VEERAPPA @ MUDDEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A HANAGANAWADI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 601. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-K DATED 29.04.2025 PASSED IN CIVIL MISC NO.261/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38379 WP No. 20398 of 2025 SESSION JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ON B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 29.04.2025 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in C.Misc.no.261/2019 at Annexure-K, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent is owner of 16 Acres 8 guntas of land in Sy.no.3/4 situated at Nanditavare village, Malebennur Hobli, Harihar Taluk, Davanagere District. In year 2014, 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 land suffered diminution of value, petition as per Annexure-A was filed before District Judge, Davanagere, in C.Misc.no.261/2019 under Section 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ('Act' for short). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38379 WP No. 20398 of 2025 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 that petition filed nearly 4 years after drawing of lines would be clearly barred by Limitation, learned District Judge allowed petition in part and directed petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.21,340/- to respondent, which 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. It is seen that similar contentions urged by petitioner herein in W.P.no.8738/2025 has been considered and petition was allowed on 09.09.2025. Present writ petition being similar, would therefore, be covered by said decision. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38379 WP No. 20398 of 2025 6. Following order passed by this Court in W.P.no.8738/2025, this writ petition is allowed; impugned order and award dated 29.04.2025 passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, in C.Misc.no.261/2019 at Annexure-K stands quashed, as barred by limitation. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39