The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fully compensating individuals for the loss and damage caused by the exercise of powers under Sec. 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The judgment emphasizes the need to consider the annual yield and potential profits from fruit bearing trees in assessing compensation, and the applicability of judicial principles in determining compensation.

( 1 ) THIS Civil revision u/s. 115 of CPC. arises from the order passed by the District Judge, Chitradurga, dated 28-9-1993 in Misc. Case No. 31/90 in proceedings u/s. 16 (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13/1885.

( 2 ) ). The facts of the case in the nut shell are that the petitioner has been the owner in possession of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 160/2, 159/2, 31/1, 158/2 and 23/1c measuring about ten acres in total at. T. Nagenahalli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. Petitioner on his land had grown Coconut Trees, Tamarind Trees, Neem Trees etc. , all were fruit bearing trees. During December, 1989, the respondents with a view to lay 220 KV transmission line between Hiriyur and Gowribidanur passing through the said lands of the petitioner, issued notice dated 2-12-1989 and thereafter cut and removed 48 fruit bearing coconut trees, 4 tamarind trees, 8 Neem trees and according to the petitioner certain other trees in all 64 trees. The case of the Revision Petitioner is that on 27-1-1990, the respondents paid to the Revision Petitioner a sum of Rs. 20,344/- as per the Schedule of rates fixed by them vide G. O. No. KEB/319/7654/84-85 dated 1-8-1988 (Exhibit D1 ). According to the petitioner's case, the petitioner received the said amount under protest as the amount was inadequate and unreasonable compensation paid by the Board. The Revision Petitioner initiated the proceedings under S. 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, before the Court of the District Judge at Chitradurga, making a claim of compensation having regard to the age of the fruit bearing trees and the capitalisation of the amount based on certain number of years. The claimant put the claim as under : @@32. htm@@

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner's case, the learned District Judge relied on the Schedule rates as exhibited by Ex. D. I which had been fixed in 1984-85 and then assessed and awarded compensation as under: @@3201. htm@@ feeling aggrieved from the order and award of the District Judge, the claimant-petitioner in Misc. No. 31/90 has come up before this Court by filing the civil Revision Petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri N. Devadas, an Advocate of this Court representing M/s. Nyayamitra, on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri R. Rudre Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent.

( 5 ) SRI Devadas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has acted illegally and against the well settled principles of law regarding the valuation of the fruit bearing trees and acted illegally in assessing the compensation at the rate of the price of the trees exhibited as officially determined, vide Ex. P. 1. Learned counsel contended that under S. 10 of the Act, it has been provided and directed that in exercise of powers conferred under S. 10, the Telegraph Authority shall do as little damages as possible and when it has exercised those powers in respect of those properties other than referred to in clause (c) of the section, it shall pay the full compensation to all the persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of exercise of its powers. Learned counsel contended that the scheme of the provision under S. 10 of the Act clearly shows that intention of the framers of the legislation is that least possible damage may only be done by the Telegraph Authorities when exercising powers under S. 10 in regard to maintenance of telegraph lines under and over and across a property. Learned counsel submitted that provision directs that full compensation is to be paid to the persons interested in damage. Learned counsel submitted that the expression 'full compensation' used in the section is the term of utmost importance. Compensation, no doubt, learned counsel contended, means that he shall be paid the money or goods that may be sufficient enough to completely compensate the loss. Learned counsel contended that in addition to the compensation, the