- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33618 WP No. 28807 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 28807 OF 2024 (GM-KEB) BETWEEN: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KPTCL, CHAMARAJANAGARA MAJOR WORKS DIVISION, FTS COMPOUND, FTS CIRCLE, N R MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. CHINNASWAMAPPA H.B., S/O SRI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT HALALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMRARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 111. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-E, DATED 21.08.204 PASSED IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. NIL, FILED IN CIVIL MISC. NO. 21/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT CHAMARAJANAGAR BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33618 WP No. 28807 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 21.08.2024 at Annexure - E passed by Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, in Civil Misc.no.21/2021 on interim application at Annexure-C filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri HV Devaraju, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, respondent was owner of land measuring 36 guntas, bearing Sy.no.291/6 of Kamarahalli village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk, over which petitioner was intending to draw 220 KVA High Tension Line. Seeking for compensation for same, petition under Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, respondent had filed C.Mis.no.21/2021 before District Court, Chamarajanagar. 3. On appearance in said petition, petitioner had filed objections. It was submitted, when matter was at stage of trial namely, examination of respondent, application at Annexure - C came to be filed for appointment of Court Commissioner for purpose of measuring corridor area over transmission line in land. Said application was allowed under impugned order without consideration of fact that appointment of Court Commissioner can only be considered after conclusion of trial, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33618 WP No. 28807 of 2024 in case of need, for purpose of elucidation of evidence. It was submitted, application filed at stage of trial was with an intention to collect evidence, which was impermissible. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition. 4. Respondent is served and unrepresented. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused writ petition record. 6. From above, it is seen petitioner's main grievance in impugned order, allowing application for appointment of Court Commissioner is that same was filed at stage of trial and apparently with an intention to collect evidence. There is no dispute about respondent being owner of land on which petitioner has drawn HT transmission lines. Petition filed by respondent before District Court, is for assessment of damages. In said proceedings extent of land falling under corridor area, i.e. area fell under transmission lines suffering from restriction of usage is required to be assessed. 7. Perusal of prayer in application filed for appointment of Court Commissioner would reveal that same is only for measurement of corridor area and prima facie not for any other purposes. While legal position that application for appointment - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33618 WP No. 28807 of 2024 of Court Commissioner is normally only after conclusion of trial cannot be disputed and at same time whether application has filed, would amount to collection of evidence, required to be considered at this stage. Since further progress of petition for determination of damages has been stalled due to interim order granted herein, it would be appropriate to set-aside order and defer consideration of application till conclusion of evidence. 8. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of. Impugned order dated 19.02.2024 allowing application for appointment of Court Commissioner is set-aside. Trial Court is directed to consider respondent/petitioner's application after conclusion of trial. At time of reconsideration, observations made by trial Court in impugned order would not be binding and trial Court require to give fresh reasons. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39