IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 20661 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT, P.B. ROAD, R. H. BUILDING, SECOND FLOOR, DAVANAGERE-577 002.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVARAJU H V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI NANDEESHA D.B., S/O. SRI. BASAPPA ALIS BASAPPA DODDAMANE, PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NANDITAVARE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.

PREMCHANDRA M R …RESPONDENT Location: HIGH COURT OF ( RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.H.V.Devaraju, counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

Notice to the respondent was ordered on 14.07.2025. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated:29.04.2025 passed by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere in Civil Misc. No.262/2019 vide Annexure-K.

3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition contending that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No.69/1 measuring 02 Acres situated at Nanditavare Village, Malebennur Hobli, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District. He contended that the KPTCL erected a tower and drew a 66 KV High Tension Power Line, having 18 meters width (Corridor Width) over his land; at that time, the KPTCL had destroyed the paddy crop, coconut and teakwood trees which were standing on his land. Contending that he has sustained a loss, he claimed compensation of Rs.21,50,000/- along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of drawing the line till the date of realization of the amount.

The respondent - KPTCL filed objections and denied the averments made by the petitioner. It was specifically contended that it had drawn the line, and the same was commissioned during 2014. The petitioner failed to approach the Court with reasonable diligence, waiting four years to initiate action. Among other grounds, it prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The parties led evidence and exhibited the documents. The Trial Court vide order dated 29.04.2025 allowed the petition and directed the KPTCL to pay the amount of Rs.20,015/- along with 8% interest from the date of the petition till the payment. Under these circumstances, the KPTCL has filed the writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions.

Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., in presenting his arguments, strenuously urged that the Trial Court had failed to consider the root of the matter regarding limitation and the order passed by the District Court is contrary to the material evidence and the law.

Next, he submits that the Court has committed an error in holding that the petition was within the law of limitation.

A further submission is made that the finding recorded by the District Court about the limitation is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM VS. T.P.KUNHALIUMMA reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634. Counsel also submitted that the Indian Telegraph Act, of 1885 is a complete code and because of the Apex Court’s decision, the District Court ought to have dismissed the petition.

Lastly, urging other contentions, counsel submitted that the claim petition is liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches.

6. Heard