Compensation claims under the Indian Telegraph Act must be filed within three years of the cause of action, with failure to adhere resulting in dismissal due to limitation.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that the issue involved in the present lis stands completely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which has been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

“The KPTCL has filed the captioned petition assailing the order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned II Additional District Ballari in Misc.P.No.198/2020, thereby allowing the petition filed under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and directed the Corporation to pay compensation of Rs.51,400/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner/Corporation has drawn 400 KV High Tension Power Line with tower over the respondent’s land. This factual matrix is admitted by the Corporation. Respondent/claimant filed petition under Section 16(3) of the Act claiming compensation against the petitioner/Corporation for having utilized the land of the respondent bearing R.S.No.8/1/A of M.Lakkalahalli village. This petition is filed by the respondent/claimant alleging loss of land and crop and diminution of the land value.

3. The present petitioner/Corporation on receipt of notice filed objections and seriously disputed the claim made by the respondent. The petitioner/Corporation also contended that the claim made by the respondent/claimant is barred by limitation since the petition is filed after lapse of nine years, and there is no cause of action.

4. The respondent/claimant and the petitioner/Corporation to substantiate their respective claim let in oral and documentary evidence. The learned District Judge while answering point No.1 held that the respondent/land owner is entitled to claim compensation. Though the learned District Judge refers to an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the court was of the view that petitioner/Corporation did not issue any notice to respondent and therefore, respondent was not aware of his rights and damages. The learned District Judge has further held that the cause of action accrued to the respondent/land owner is not disclosed by the action of the petitioner/Corporation since no notices were issued to respondent and therefore, performance certificate marked at Ex.R2 indicating the date of accomplishment of installation and construction of 400KV DC line on 12.04.2012 cannot be accepted. This finding is perverse. The very installation of 400 KV DC line amount to constructive notice and therefore respondent/land owner ought to have taken to recourse through law as provided under Indian Telegraph Act.

5. This Court has carefully heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation as well as the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. It has also given anxious consideration to the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM V. T.P. KUNHALIUMMA, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634. The said decision has been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22208/2019 and further affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.100366/2022 and connected matters. This Court has also given due consideration to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. The following point would arise for consideration.

“Whether the order impugned granting compensation invoking Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 is perverse and contrary to Ex.R2 and therefore contravenes the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Kerala Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs T.P.Kunhaliumma?”

Finding on the point:

6. Before this Hon’ble Court proceeds to delve into the substantive issue arising for consideration in the pr