JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - By way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to award ( Annexure P-3) dated 15.3.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in CMP(I.T.) No.161 of 2014, setting aside the order (Annexure P-2) dated 30.5.2014, passed by learned District Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in case No.6/DC/Comp./2011, whereby a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(six lakh rupees) was awarded on account of the alleged damage caused to the house/ property of the petitioners. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that the petitioners, whose land/property came to be used/damaged for the purpose of erection of towers and laying of transmission line by the respondentcompany, petitioners preferred an application before the learned District Magistrate, Kullu, praying therein for compensation. Learned District Magistrate vide order dated 30.5.2014 held the applicants/petitioners entitled to the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- in addition to the amount paid to them earlier. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, passed by learned District Magistrate, Kullu, respondent herein filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ( for short ''Act'') in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P., who set aside the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Kullu, holding therein that District Magistrate had no authority/ jurisdiction to award compensation, if any, while exercising power under Section 16(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 5. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the respondent while inviting attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 302 of 2018, titled as M/s A.D.Hydro Power Limited versus Juglu Ram, decided on 3.12.2018, contended that case at hand is squarely covered by this judgment, wherein it has been specifically held that District Magistrate has no authority/jurisdiction to award compensation, if any, under Section 16(3) of the Act qua the damage, if any, caused to the house/property of the claimants by licensee while erecting towers/laying transmission line. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners after perusing the judgment fairly stated that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach appropriate authority, in accordance with law. He further stated that since petitioners-claimants approached the wrong forum and matter remained pending, therefore plea of limitation, if any, may not be raised by the respondent. 7. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent fairly stated that in the event of petitioner''s filing an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, within a period of two months, plea of limitation, if any, would not be raised by the respondent. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioners-claimants to approach appropriate authority i.e. District Judge, Under Section 16(3) of the Act, for redressal of their grievance within a period of two months from the date of passing instant judgment. However, it is made clear that in case petitioners fails to file application, as referred hereinabove, within the period prescribed by this Court, respondent shall be at liberty to raise plea of limitation. Since, matter is hanging fire since 2011, this Court hopes and trust that learned Court below shall dispose of the application, if any, preferred by the petitioners, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing such application. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.