Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction against respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation given by them vide Annexure – C on 31-7-2010 and determine the compensation payable to them. 2. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 4 measuring 2 acres situated at Duduvanahalli Village, Dinnahalli Post, Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk. According to the petitioner, he has been running a brick factory by obtaining necessary licence from the concerned authorities in the land. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 started drawing high tension electrical wire over the petitioner’s property. Efforts made by the petitioner to prevent the authorities from drawing the electrical line were in vain. Petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, seeking compensation for the loss and damage suffered by him in view of the drawing up of high tension electrical line over his property. Respondent 4-Deputy Commissioner has passed an order on 25-3-2010 directing the respondents 1 to 3 to determine the compensation payable and Pay the same to the petitioner. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner has directed the Power Grid Corporation of India-respondent 1 and also the Regional Office of the Power Grid Corporation of India which is arrayed as respondent 2 herein to determine the compensation and pay the same within three months. As the respondents failed to pay the amount, petitioner addressed letters to the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager of respondent 1-Corporation. Copy of the said representation is produced at Annexure-C. In reply, petitioner was informed by the Deputy General Manager of the 1st respondent-corporation that the representation given by the petitioner has been forwarded to the Kolar Unit as the case was been dealt with there. Petitioner was requested to correspond with the Kolar Unit. A copy of this communication is produced at Annexure-D. In the circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in paying compensation due to the petitioner, he has approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 5. Petitioner was requested to correspond with the Kolar Unit. A copy of this communication is produced at Annexure-D. In the circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in paying compensation due to the petitioner, he has approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 5. As can be seen from Section 10(d)of the Indian Telegraph Act ,1885 (for a short, ‘the act’),the telegraph authority is enjoined with the duty to pay the full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them on account of the exercise of their powers in maintaining or drawing the telegraphic lines across any immovable property. Section 16 of the Act deals with disputes regarding compensation. Subsection (3) thereof states that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of compensation to be paid under Section 10(d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. 6. In the instant case, the respondents who have drawn the power line have not made any payment nor have they passed any order determining the compensation, if any, payable to the petitioner. Unless respondents 1 to 3/Competent Authorities thereof pass an order, petitioner will have no effective remedy to approach the District Judge have jurisdiction for the purpose of filing an application under Section 16(3) of the Act. The cause of action will arise when the owner of the land is informed by the respondent-authorities of the compensation payable to him. If the authorities are of the view that no damage has occurred and therefore no compensation was required to be paid, a decision to that effect has to be taken taking note of all the relevant circumstances and the same has to be communicated to the petitioner. 7. When the petitioner approached respondent 4 invoking the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 10 and 16, the respondents did not appear before respondent 4 to resist the claim made. Respondent 4 has passed an order on 25-3-2010 vide Annexure-B stating that he had no power to pass any order awarding compensation and disposed of the matter observing that the respondent-Corporation has to take steps to assess the damage sustained by the petitioner and pay compensation. Respondent 4 has passed an order on 25-3-2010 vide Annexure-B stating that he had no power to pass any order awarding compensation and disposed of the matter observing that the respondent-Corporation has to take steps to assess the damage sustained by the petitioner and pay compensation. Thereafter, when the petitioner called upon the respondents to make payment by addressing a representation dated 31-7-2011, no action is taken by the respondents. It is the duty of the respondent-authorities to pass an order and communicate its decision to the petitioner. 8. Though it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that as per Section 68(5) of the Electricity Act,2003, it is the Executive Magistrate or the Authority Specified by the Appropriate Government who has the power to consider such application for payment of compensation, Section 68(5) makes it clear that where any structure or other object which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the accessibility of any works, the Executive Magistrate or authority specified by the appropriate Government may, on the application of the licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit. Section 68 (6) of the Electricity Act states that when disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive Magistrate or Authority specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of any tree in existence before the placing of the overhead line, award to the person interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable. 9. In the instant case, the licensee viz., respondent-Corporation has not made any application before the Executive Magistrate for causing removal of the structure stating that the same is put up after the line was drawn. Therefore, the matter is not seized by the Executive Magistrate and hence the Executive Magistrate has no power to grant any compensation. On the other hand, as the application is made by the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act invoking Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3), the respondent authority has to pass an order. Hence, the contention urged in this regard by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation is not sustainable. 10. On the other hand, as the application is made by the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphic Act invoking Section 10(d) read with Section 16(3), the respondent authority has to pass an order. Hence, the contention urged in this regard by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation is not sustainable. 10. Since it is contended by the petitioner that they have suffered damage on account of the high tension lines drawn over the brick factory run by the petitioner, it is the duty of the respondents to take note of all the relevant circumstances and pass an order in accordance with law, particularly in the light of the provisions contained under Section 10(d) read with sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act. 11. Therefore, a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to pass an order in terms stated hereinabove. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order to be passed, then he will have remedy as provided under the Act to approach the concerned District Judge in the matter. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part in terms stated above. The respondent-Corporation shall comply with this order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.