A claim for compensation for damages caused by electricity line installation is not barred by limitation if the authority fails to prove that notice of compensation was served or payment was made, particularly when the claimant's knowledge is triggered by payments to neighboring landowners.

Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S

2ND FLOOR

Location: High Court of Karnataka

WRIT APPEAL NO. 642 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, DATED 06.06.2024 PASSED IN W.P. No.10651/2017 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD, DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED IN MISCL.No.114/2006 ON THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU AND DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants, officials of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereafter, 'KPTCL'), have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10651/2017 (GM-KEB).

2. The appellants had preferred the said petition assailing an order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru [District Court], in Miscellaneous Petition No.114/2006. The said petition was filed by the respondent claiming compensation of an amount of `8,20,000/- for the damages suffered on account of the removal of 80 mango trees. KPTCL had removed the said trees to lay electricity lines on the respondent's land.

3. The respondent's claim was based on the assertion that each mango tree would yield `500. This was contested by the KPTCL. During the proceedings before the learned District Court, KPTCL also raised the issue of limitation. It claimed that the electric lines were drawn in the year 1996. However, the respondent had filed the petition under Section 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 [Electricity Act], read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [Telegraph Act] in the year 2006. However, no such grounds were raised in the written statement/statement of objections filed by the KPTCL. The said contention was advanced orally at the hearing.

4. The respondent contested KPTCL’s contention that his claim was barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondent claimed that he had never received a notice intimating the compensation fixed for the loss caused, and he continued to await the same. However, in the year 2006, compensation was disbursed to the owners of the neighbouring lands, and therefore, he issued a legal notice to the KPTCL demanding the compensation due. Although, the KPTCL received the notice, it did not respond to the same.

Therefore, the respondent had filed the petition before the learned District Court.

5. The parties led their evidence, and the learned District Court found that the KPTCL was unable to refute the respondent's claim that he had not received any notice of compensation. Although the KPTCL claimed to have paid compensation to the respondent, there is no evidence to establish the same. We may note that the KPTCL has not produced any evidence to show that the compensation has been paid either before the learned Single Judge or in the present appeal.

6. It is not disputed that 400 KV overhead electric transmission lines had been pulled over the land of the respondent, and he wa