The Supreme Court ruled that applications under the Telegraph Act for compensation must adhere to the Limitation Act's Article 137, establishing judicial processes for enhancing compensation claims.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in the cases at hand is common –Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (‘the Corporation’ for short), who has laid power lines on the lands of the respondents – landowners.

2. In identical issues were raised before the co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.22208/2019. The co-ordinate bench of this Court following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. T.P. KUNHALIUMMA , [ (1976) 4 SCC 634 ], disposed the said writ petition on 27.02.2024, holding as follows:

"The respondent has drawn electrical transmission line 66/11 KV on the land belonging to the petitioners, and aggrieved with the meager compensation awarded, filed a petition under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraphs Act, 1885 . The said application was rejected on the ground that the same was not filed within three years as stated under Article 137 of the limitation Act. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Before installation of 66/11 KV transmission line over the lands of the petitioners, notice was issued inviting objections, and also directing the owners to produce the documents to prove the ownership and also to remove the standing trees coming under the electrical transmission line. The petitioners executed an Indemnity Bond on 15.4.2008 before receiving the compensation.

4. Admitting, the receipt of compensation amount towards removal of the standing trees, the petition was filed on 20.8.2011, and also an application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition since the same was not filed within three years.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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 Telegraphs Act, 1885 for enhancement of compensation, the District judge acts as Civil Court and hence Article 137 applies. Therefore, the application filed under Section 16 of the Telegraphs Act, beyond 3 years from the date of cause of action is barred by limitation.

6. The learned District Judge by relying on the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and also the application submitted by the petitioners. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge.

7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed."

3. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD supra, while dealing with an identical circumstance as observed as follows:

"18. The alteration of the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 compared with Article 181 of the 1908 Limitation Act shows that applications contemplated under Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure. In the 1908 Limitation Act there was no division between applications in specified cases and other applications as in the 1963 Limitation Act. The words “any other application” under Article 137 cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other application under Article 137 would be petition or any application under any Act. But it has to be an application to a court for the reason that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1963 Limitation Act speak of expiry of prescribed period when court is closed and extension of prescribed period if applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the ap