- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 104523 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, 3RD CROSS, JCR EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KPTCL MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, KAVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S.KAMATE., ADVOCATE) AND: D.ANJANEYYA S/O DASARA AGALURAPPA, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL, R/O. 36, WARD NO. 1, NEAR THAYAMMA TEMPLE, ANTAPURA VILLAGE, THORANAGALLU HOBALI, TQ. SANDUR-583 119, DIST. BALLARI. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.B.S.Kamate., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondent was ordered on 31.07.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in Misc. Petition No.62/2017 vide Annexure-E and to dismiss the Misc. Petition No.62/2017. 4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court. 5. The petitioner – D.Anjaneya contends that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No.44/2 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 measuring 5 acres 54 cents situated at Antapura Village, Thoranagallu Hobli, Sandoor Taluk, Bellary District and had grown Cotton crops on the land. It is his case that the respondents drew a 400 KV High Tension Power Line having 46 meters of width (Corridor width) over his land in 2012 and at the time of drawing the line, the respondents had destroyed the standing crops. Hence, he filed a claim petition in Misc. No.62/2017 before the District Court, seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.47,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the drawing the line till the date of realization of the amount. After the issuance of the notice, the KPTCL filed its objections and specifically contended that the claim petition is barred by time. They contended that the line was drawn and commissioned in 2012. Among other grounds, it prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The petitioner examined as PW1 and produced two documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 and P2. One T.R.Manjunatha was examined as RW1 and produced two documents which were marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 On the trial of the action, the District Court vide Order dated 03.02.2023 allowed the claim petition. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 6. Sri.B.S.Kamate., counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the District Court is contrary to the material evidence and the law. Next, he submits that the Court has committed an error in holding that the petition was within the law of limitation. A further submission is made that the finding recorded by the District Court about the limitation is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM VS. T.P.KUNHALIUMMA reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634. Counsel also submitted that the Indian Telegraph Act, of 1885 is a complete code and because of the Apex Court’s decision, the District Court ought to have dismissed the petition. Counsel vehemently contended that the Court had committed an error in deciding the issue of limitation by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 applying the provisions of CPC under Order 21 Rule 58 which does not apply to the present case. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of the Trial Court is bad in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside and the Writ Petition may be allowed. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM VS. T.P.KUNHALIUMMA reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634. 2. SRI.DEVARAJAIAH AND OTHERS VS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) IN W.P.NO.22208/2019 DISPOSED OF ON 27.02.2024. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 8. The following points would arise for my consideration. 1. Whether the District Court is justified in entertaining the claim petition beyond the period of limitation. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 2. Whether the order of the District Court requires interference. 9. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. Sri.D.Anjaneya filed a claim petition under section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 before the District Court and sought enhancement of compensation. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM VS. T.P.KUNHALIUMMA reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634 has held that while dealing with the applications under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for enhancement of compensation, the District Judge acts as Civil Court and hence Article 137 applies. Reverting to the facts of the case, the KPTCL drew the High-Tension Power Line and commissioned it in 2012. Strangely, the petitioner – Sri.D.Anjaneya filed the claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation after a lapse of almost five years. There is an inordinate delay of almost five years. The District Court ought to have considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation. The District Judge has failed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. The claim petition filed under section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is beyond three years from the date of the cause of action, hence, it is barred by limitation. The claim petition is dismissed as barred by time. Since the petition/ application is rejected as barred by time, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Resultantly, this Court deems it proper to quash the order passed by the District Court. Counsel for the petitioners has cited several cases referred to supra, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each case turns on its facts. The present case is also tested in light of the aforesaid decision and order. 10. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in Misc. Petition No.62/2017 vide Annexure-E is quashed. 11. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Lastly, counsel Sri.B.S.Kamate., submits that the petitioners have deposited the amount before this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6129 WP No. 104523 of 2023 Submission is noted. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to refund the amount in deposit in favor of the Corporation after due identification. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and the interim order if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51