1. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 8 in O. P. (Electricity) No. 68/83 are the revision petitioners.

2. The order under challenge is one passed by the District Judge under S.16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. for short'The Act'. The operative portion of the order reads: -

"In the result, I find that respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 8 are together entitled to a 3/4th share and that the 9th respondent is entitled to a 1/4th share available as compensation".

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argue that the 9th respondent is not entitled to any share much less 1/4th share in the compensation. His further argument is that there is no such person as T. Devaki, the 9th respondent in the O. P. (who is the second respondent herein) entitled to get a share, in the compensation. Nonetheless the court below has awarded 1/4 share in the compensation to the said respondent. The order therefore is one passed without jurisdiction and hence liable to be interfered with under S.115 C.P.C. the learned counsel submits.

4. A reference to sub-s. 5 of S.16 with the proviso thereto is relevant in the context. It reads:216(1) (5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-s. (3