Appellants have preferred this appeal, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dt. 26-07-2010 passed in W.P.No.14103/2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order passed by the learned District Judge in Misc. Petition No.45/2007.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order impugned in the writ petition.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are stated as hereunder:

When the work of construction of 66 K.V. Tubinakere – Mandya, multicircuit line (MCL) for a distance of about 10 kms. was under progress, it was stopped at locations 35, 36 and 37 due to objections raised by the land owners viz. Lokesh the respondent herein, Smt. Pramila and the President of People’s Education Society, Mandya respectively. Therefore, the appellants approached the District Magistrate of Mandya, requesting him to remove the objections raised by the land owners and grant them permission to proceed with the work. The District Magistrate by order dt. 04-03-2002 ordered for removal of the objections raised by the land owners including the respondent and permitted the appellants to carry out the work, pursuant to which the stub concrete at location No. 37 in the land belonging to the People’s Education Society, Mandya, was completed during 2002. The land owners of location Nos. 35 and 36 namely – Lokesh, the respondent herein and one Smt. Pramila, aggrieved by the order of removal of objections passed by the District Magistrate, Mandya, had preferred Writ Petition Nos. 30531 and 30618 of 2002 respectively, before this Court, seeking to quash the orders passed by the District Magistrate mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the order passed by the District Magistrate is without issuing notice to them and therefore it is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. Secondly, if the appellants are not prevented from carrying out the work of construction of 66 K.V. Tubinakere – Mandya, multicircuit line at the place proposed by them, it would render their entire land useless. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, this Court directed the Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Transmission (Works) Mysore, to inspect the spot and find out the feasibility of fixing the M.C. Tower without causing much damage to the lands of the respondent and Smt. Pramila. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the Superintending Engineer has inspected the spot and submitted a report stating that the M.C. Tower can be erected at the North-East location instead of the place where the appellants have proposed to install the M.C. Tower. This Court considering the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer, disposed of the writ petition filed by this respondent herein on 07112003 with a direction to the appellants to erect the M.C. tower on the North-East side of the land of the respondent, so as to cause least damage to his land and the respondent was given liberty to make a suitable application before the Authorities under Sec. 16(3) of the Telegraphic Act for necessary compensation in this regard.

4. Accordingly, appellants have drawn the electric line and have erected the M.C. tower on the North-East side of the land of the respondent and thereafter respondent has made an application dt. 03-09-04 before the appellants, requesting them to grant him compensation as contemplated under the Telegraph Act. Considering the application submitted by the respondent, appellants have granted him compensation of Rs.56,712/.

5. The respondent aggrieved by the quantum of compensation of Rs.56,712/granted by the appellants, filed a petition in Misc. Petition No. 45/2007 before the District Judge at Mandya, under Sec. 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, contending that out of 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.195/19 of Kirangadooru village of Mandya Taluk, belonging to him, the area of land utilized