Dismissed¶116

Mrs H Meera Shenoy v. the Asst Execute Engineer

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2025RSA/1377/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC second appeal; removal of two KEB electricity poles erected without owner consent through private land (Sy.No.241/4B, Kemminje) to supply Campco Chocolate Factory; Indian Electricity Act 1910 S.12, S.12(2), S.51 Government order; Indian Telegraph Act 1885 S.10, S.10(d), S.16(3) compensation before District authority; mandatory injunction denied after 21 years; Nagaraju vs Mahalingappa ILR 1990 KAR 1515 relied on; substantial questions answered against appellants; appeal dismissed, own costs, liberty to seek compensation under S.16(3).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief: appeal dismissed; parties directed to bear their own costs; liberty reserved to the appellants to invoke Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 to seek just and reasonable compensation if advised. ¶116

Mrs H Meera Shenoy Vs the Asst Execute Engineer — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶116

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the dismissal of the suit is sustainable, having recorded a specific finding in favour of the appellant that erection of electric poles for drawing electric lines on his property by the defendant was illegal and impermissible. +1 more

¶84

Court's answer

Both substantial questions of law are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents; accordingly the First Appellate Court's judgment dismissing the appeal and confirming the dismissal of the suit stands, and the regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶116

Ratio / Principle

Since there is reference to a Government order passed under Section 51 of the Act, 1910 (conferring on the Board the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as shown in Nagaraju vs Mahalingappa, ILR 1990 KAR 1515), the court finds no merit in the appellants' contention that the Act of 1885 is not applicable to the drawing of the electric line in this case.

¶108

Key takeaways

As per Section 10(d) of the Act, 1885 as little damage as possible is to be caused while drawing such lines; since two poles were erected allegedly rendering the entire site useless, the appellants are expressly reserved liberty to invoke Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 to seek just and reasonable compensation.ratio¶121

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA No. 1377/2009 (High Court of Karnataka, Justice M G Uma, decided 10.12.2025): Legal representatives of the original plaintiff in O.S.127/1988 (Puttur) challenged the dismissal of their suit seeking declaration that two electricity poles erected by the Karnataka Electricity Board through their schedule-A land (Sy.No.241/4B, Kemminje village) to supply the private Campco Chocolate Factory were unauthorised, together with mandatory injunction for removal and damages. The Trial Court answered all issues in the negative; the First Appellate Court, while recording that the Board's act was procedurally defective, highhanded and illegal, dismissed the appeal only because 21 years had lapsed. On the substantial questions framed on 26.11.2010, the High Court held that in view of the Government order under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 conferring Telegraph Authority powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (relying on Nagaraju vs Mahalingappa, ILR 1990 KAR 1515), the Act of 1885 governs the drawing of the line and the appellants' contentions fail; both questions were answered against the appellants. Appeal dismissed with parties bearing their own costs, and liberty reserved to the appellants to invoke Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 for just and reasonable compensation.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1377 OF 2009

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS H MEERA SHENOY W/O LATE H.R. SHENOY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/A # 230 4^TH MAIN, ELECTRON CITY, BANGALORE - 560 034.

¶9

MRS. JAYASHREE SHENOY W/O K. PRAKASH SHENOY STATE BANK OF MYSORE, SUDAMBI, BRANCH BYADIGI TALUK, HAVERI: 581 110.

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

LAXMI DEVI @ REKAH MALLYA @ JAYALAKSHMI MALLYA W/O K. HARISH MALLYA, AMEY ROAD, KASARAGOD, KERALA - 670 121.

¶12

NAVYA BHAT @ ARCHANA, W/O M. NAVEENCHANDRA BHAT, MAHALASA, BEHIND A J HOSPITAL MANGALORE - 575 004

¶13

SANATH KUMAR SHENOY S/O LATE H.R. SHENOY, MAJOR, R/A # 230, 4^TH MAIN ELECTRON CITY, BANGALORE-560034

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA ELECTRICAL BOARD, PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 102

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 004

¶21

THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR

¶24

SRI. N. KRISHNANANDA GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR F1-R3)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.6.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.106/1991 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) PUTTUR, D.K., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.7.1991 PASSED IN O.S.127/1988 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. MUNSIFF, PUTTUR, D.K.,

¶26

THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

The legal representatives of the original plaintiff in OS.No.127/1988 on the file of the learned Principal Munsiff at Puttur, DK (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), are impugning the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1991 passed by the Trial Court by dismissing the suit for declaration and

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

mandatory injunction and also the judgment dated 09.06.2009 passed in RA.No.106/1991 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Puttur, DK (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

¶33

The original plaintiff has filed the suit OS.No.127/1988 seeking declaration that erection of poles and laying of electric line by the defendants over the schedule-A property is unauthorised and illegal. He also sought for mandatory injunction to remove the electric pole and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from erecting the said electric poles over the schedule property and directing the defendants to pay damages for unauthorized placing of poles over the said property.

¶34

It is the contention of plaintiff that he is the owner of immovable property described in schedule-A, which is situated nearby the newly established Campco Chocolate Factory in Kemminje Village. Schedule-A refers to 19 cents of land in

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Sy.No.241/4B of northern portion with the boundaries mentioned therein.

¶39

It is contended that the defendants wanted to draw

¶40

electric line to Campco Chocolate Factory which is a private factory, without following the procedure as laid down in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short 'the Act, 1910') and highhandedly erected the poles through schedule-A property, ignoring the objections raised by the plaintiff by writing the letter dated 22.04.1986, which is acknowledged by the defendants. During October/November 1986, the defendants unauthorizedly erected two electric poles over schedule-A property making the site non-usable. No building could be constructed in the said land and the same could not be used for any other purpose. The defendants have not followed any of the procedures as contemplated under law for drawing the line and erecting the poles.

¶41

It is contended that the plaintiff made a request to defendant No.1 on 15.12.1986 to shift the poles outside the schedule-A property. A legal notice was also issued to the defendants. Inspite of that, the defendants have not taken any

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

action. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration that the erection of poles by the defendants over schedule-A property is unauthorized, illegal and consequently, to grant mandatory injunction against the defendants to remove the poles and the lines, erected and drawn illegally.

¶45

The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is admitted that the defendants have drawn electric line to give power supply to Campco Chocolate Factory. It is denied that the plaintiff has sent letter dated 22.04.1986 raising any objections. Since the plaintiff has not objected, the defendants completed erecting of electric poles and drawing of lines. It is contended that no damage is caused to the land and such erection and drawing of electric poles and lines cannot be termed as illegal act. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief for removing the poles or lines or for damages.

¶46

It is contended that the electricity line was charged on 15.07.1988 and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to file the suit. It is contended that the suit of the plaintiff is luxurious litigation and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court

¶51

framed the following issues for consideration:

¶52

"1. Whether the plaintiff prove that erection of poles and laying electric line in 'A' Schedule property is unauthorized and illegal?

¶53

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction sought for?

¶54

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages sought for?

¶55

4. To what decree or order?"

¶56

Plaintiff examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 16 in support of his contention. Defendants examined DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 in support of their contention. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and dismissed the suit.

¶57

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in RA.No.106/1991. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, recorded a finding that the act of the defendants not only suffers from the procedural defects, it is also a highhanded and illegal act. However, it proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

already 21 years have lapsed and at this length of time, the discretionary relief for mandatory injunction to remove the electric pole cannot be granted. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

¶61

Heard Sri. K Srihari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. H V Devaraju, learned counsel for Sri. N Krishnananda Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff has raised objections for erection of poles and drawing of lines through schedule-A property, as evidenced by Exs.P4 and 5. But the same was not considered by the defendants as required under Section 12 of the Act, 1910. The defendants should have obtained permission from the District Magistrate before erecting the poles and drawing the line. Learned counsel contended that due to erection of two electric poles in the plaint schedule-A property, the entire site has become useless. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for mandatory injunction to remove the poles.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Learned counsel also submitted that the defendants could have drawn the line to give electric supply to the private factory through the public land, without causing damages to the land of the plaintiff. The same was not opted by the defendants. Therefore, it is nothing but highhanded act on the part of the defendants.

¶66

Learned counsel also submitted that even though the First Appellate Court recorded a categorical finding, that the act of the defendants was infact high handed and illegal, the defendants could not have taken the law into their own hands for the purpose of erecting the electric pole and drawing the line. Thus, the act of the defendants is illegal and proceeded to dismiss the appeal solely on the ground that 21 years have already lapsed and therefore, the appellants are not entitled for any relief. This finding of the First Appellate Court was never challenged by the defendants. The First Appellate Court ignored the fact that the appellants are prosecuting the suit seeking mandatory injunction all these 21 years. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court suffers from illegality and hence, prays for answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellants and to allow the

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

appeal granting the relief of mandatory injunction and damages

¶70

to restore the site to its original condition.

¶71

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal while conceding that even though there is an adverse finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, the same was not challenged by preferring an appeal. He contended that the evidence of PW.1 discloses that only 2 cents of land, which was valued around Rs.600/- to 800/- per cent, was occupied for erection of poles. Under such circumstances, the loss that might have caused is only about Rs.1,000/-. Hence, the appellants are not entitled for any relief.

¶72

Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'the Act, 1885') to contend that if any dispute arises concerning claim of plaintiff for compensation, an application should have been moved before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Therefore, the plaintiff could not have maintained the suit.

¶73

Learned counsel also submitted that under Section 51 of the Act, 1910, an order was passed by the State to draw

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

the electric line and hence it cannot be said that the act of the defendants are illegal or high handed.

¶78

Learned counsel contended that since the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court recorded a concurrent finding of facts, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶79

In reply, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Exs.P4 and 5 disclose that even before drawing the line, the plaintiff had raised the objection for erection of any poles in his land, but deliberately, the same was ignored. DW.1 specifically admits that drawing of line was not for public purpose, but it was for a private factory. Section 12(2) of the Act, 1910 makes it clear that no poles could be erected and the lines could be drawn without the consent of owner or the occupier. The defendants should have taken permission from the District Magistrate. In the absence of such permission, definitely the act of the defendants are illegal, and the same has been rightly held by the First Appellate Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal.

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

As per the order dated 26.11.2010, the following substantial questions of laws were formulated:

¶84

"i) Is the judgment of the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal and confirming the dismissal of the suit, sustainable having recorded a specific finding in favour of the appellant that he had established erection of electric poles for drawing electric lines on his property by the defendant is illegal and impermissible?

¶85

ii) Finding recorded by the Appellate Court is that erection of poles and drawing of electric lines on the property of the plaintiff without the permission of District Magistrate is illegal. Was not the appellant entitled to a decree of Mandatory Injunction for removal of the same and for compensation?"

¶86

The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants are the owners of the land in question, where two electricity poles were erected for drawing the line for a private factory.

¶87

Learned counsel for the respondents is placing reliance on Section 51 of the Act, 1910, to contend that the provisions of the Act, 1885 is applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is his contention that as per Section

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

10 of the Act, 1885, powers are vested with the authority to place and maintain the telegraph line and poles and the same is applicable to the electricity lines and poles. It is contended that, when the provision of the Act, 1885 is made applicable and the plaintiff is contending that he has suffered loss by the act of the defendants i.e., erection of poles and drawing of lines, the plaintiff should have invoked Section 16(3) of the Act, 1885, before the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction, the property is situated, who will assume jurisdiction to determine any dispute that arises concerning sufficiency of compensation to be paid under Section 10 of the Act, 1885.

¶92

Section 10(d) of the Act, 1885 mandates that as little damage is to be caused as possible, in exercise of power vested in the authority, while erecting poles and drawing lines in respect of the property belonging to private party and to pay full compensation to the persons, who are interested for any damages sustained by them. Therefore, when the defendants, who are vested with the powers by virtue of Section 51 of the Act, 1885, are entitled to draw the line by erecting the poles, caused any damages to the property, the appellants are

¶93

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

entitled to raise the dispute with regard to sufficiency of compensation payable to them.

¶96

Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention to the decision of this Court in Nagaraju vs Mahalingappa¹ , wherein, the Trial Court has extracted paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said order, which reads as under:

¶97

"6. Thus Section 51 of the Act empowers the State Government to confer upon the Karnataka Electricity Board, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Sections 12 to 16 and 18 and 19 of the Act, for placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy to the public or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the purpose of carrying on works under the Act subject to the conditions and restrictions as may be stated in the order to exercise any of the powers which the Telegraphic Authority possesses under the India Telegraphs Act, 1885 with respect to placing of telegraph lines and poles for the purpose of telegraphs established or maintained or to be established or maintained by the Government. It is in the exercise of this power the State Government has issued an order bearing No. PWD 20 EEB 69 dated 22/25th July 1969 which reads thus:

¶98

"In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Central Act 9 of 1910) and in supersession of Order No.S.O.2037 dated the 8th February 1965, the Government of Mysore, for the placing of, electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy hereby confers upon the M.S.E.B. the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses under Section 10 to 19 and 19A of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (Central Act 13 of 1885) with respect to the placing telegraph lines and posts for the

¶99

1 ILR 1990 KAR 1515

¶100

14 -

¶101

NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained and the Government of Mysore further directs that the powers conferred under this order are exercisable subject to the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and to the conditions specified hereunder namely:-

¶104

1. the telegraph and telephone lines crossing the transmission lines shall be efficiently guarded to the satisfaction of the Telegraph Authority; and

¶105

2. all such crossings shall be at right angle or as near to right angles as practicable."

¶106

7. Thus In the light of the aforesaid provisions read with the Government Order No. PWD 20 EEB 69 dated 22/25th July 1969, it is open to the K.E.B. to enter upon the lands of private citizens for the purpose of placing of electric supply lines, appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy without the consent of the owners of such lands. "

¶107

Since there is reference to the order of Government

¶108

passed under Section 51 of the Act, 1910, I do not find any merits in the contentions raised by the appellants that, the Act of 1885 is not applicable for drawing of electric line as done in

¶109

the present case by the respondents. No other grounds are urged by learned counsel for the appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.

¶110

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants

¶111

prays for reserving liberty to the appellants to seek reasonable

¶112

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:52395 RSA No. 1377 of 2009

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

compensation by invoking Section 16(3) of the Act 1885. Since

¶115

as per Section 10(d) of the Act 1885, as little damages as possible is to be caused while drawing such lines and since it is the contention of the plaintiff that two poles were erected making the entire site useless, I deem it appropriate to reserve such liberty with the appellants, in the interest of justice.

¶116

In view of the above, the substantial questions of

¶117

law are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

i) The appeal is dismissed .

¶120

ii) Under peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶121

iii) The appellants are at liberty to invoke Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885, to seek just and reasonable compensation, if they are advised to do so.

¶122