Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer (Ele) vs Gurusiddappa S/O K.S.Sidlingappa on 10 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507
WP No. 105930 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 105930 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD.,
MAJOR WORKS DIVISION,
1ST FLOOR, OPPOSITE TO STADIUM,
HADADI ROAD,
THEN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 525,
NOW VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S.KAMATE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
GURUSIDDAPPA S/O K.S.SIDLINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed by R/O. KANCHIKERI VILLAGE,
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH HARAPANAHALLI TQ-583 131.
COURT OF DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA
NOW VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507
WP No. 105930 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
Sri.B.S.Kamate., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.
2. An Emergent Notice to the respondent was ordered on 06.01.2025. 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 16.03.2024 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, (Sitting at Hosapete) in Misc. Petition No.5440/2020 vide Annexure-H and to dismiss the Misc. Petition No.5440/2020.
4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.
5. The petitioner - Sri.Gurusiddappa contends that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No.351/A measuring 02 acres 95 cents situated at Kanchikeri Village, Arasikeri Hobli, Harapanahalli Taluk, Vijayanagara District and -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507 WP No. 105930 of 2024 had grown Maize crops on the land. It is his case that the respondent drew a 66 KV High Tension Power Line having 18 meters of width (Corridor width) over his land in 2013 and at the time of drawing the line, the respondent had destroyed the standing crops. Hence, he filed a claim petition in Misc. No.5440/2020 before the District Court, seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,56,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% 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 2013. 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 P.2. The examination of the respondent was taken as Nil and two documents were marked as Exs.R.1 and R.2.
On the trial of the action, the District Court vide Order dated 16.03.2024 allowed the claim petition. This order is -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507 WP No. 105930 of 2024 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 petitioner 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 applying the provisions of CPC under Order 21 Rule 58 which does not apply to the present case.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507 WP No. 105930 of 2024 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 petitioner 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.
2. Whether the order of the District Court requires interference.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507 WP No. 105930 of 2024
9. The facts are sufficiently stated and they do not require reiteration. Sri.Gurusiddappa 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 2013. Strangely, the petitioner - Sri.Gurusiddappa filed the claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation after a lapse of almost seven years. There is an inordinate delay of almost seven years. It is pertinent to note that the claimant admitted in his cross-examination that the lines were drawn in 2013. Despite the admission, the District Court went ahead with the matter and erroneously concluded that the petition was within the law of limitation. The District Court ought to have -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507 WP No. 105930 of 2024 considered the financial repercussions on the Corporation. The District Judge has failed 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 petitioner 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 16.03.2024 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, (Sitting at Hosapete) in Misc. Petition No.5440/2020 vide Annexure-H is quashed.
11. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4507 WP No. 105930 of 2024 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.
If the Corporation has deposited any amount pursuant to the order passed by the District Court, the same may be refunded to the Corporation after due identification.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH,MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55