PRAKASH G.M. @ G.M.PRAKASHA @ PRAKASH S.M. vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIV., KPTCL CHITRADURGA. Advocate - M.B. REVANNA — 706/2024

Case under Indian Telegraph Act Section 16,(3). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 27th June 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 27-Jun-2026

Misc - Miscellaneous Cases

CNR: KACD010042862024

Filing Number

706/2024

Filing Date

02-Aug-2024

Registration No

706/2024

Registration Date

06-Aug-2024

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, CHITRADURGA

Judge

229-Addl. District And Sessions Judge

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Telegraph Act Section 16,(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRAKASH G.M. @ G.M.PRAKASHA @ PRAKASH S.M.

    Adv. R. BHIMESH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORKS DIV., KPTCL CHITRADURGA. Advocate - M.B. REVANNA

  2. 2.ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KPTCL CHITRADURGA.

    Adv. M.B. REVANNA

Case History

  1. 27-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: C.Misc. 706/2024 Order Date: 05.03.2026 The court proceeded with examination of witnesses and heard arguments from both parties. The petitioner, Prakash G.M., claims that KPTCL constructed an electricity pole and transmission line on his land, causing damage, and that he was paid only crop compensation (₹2,97,621) instead of land compensation. The respondent KPTCL argues that a 18-meter easement zone exists below the transmission line where no permanent structures can be built, and disputes the petitioner's entitlement to additional land compensation. The court found that KPTCL has not provided land compensation as required and adjourned the case for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  7. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  8. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  9. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  10. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  11. 11-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  12. 18-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  13. 25-Feb-2025

    Objection

    Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  14. 19-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 02-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 706/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.Misc. 706/2024 Order Date: 05.03.2026 The court proceeded with examination of witnesses and heard arguments from both parties. The petitioner, Prakash G.M., claims that KPTCL constructed an electricity pole and transmission line on his land, causing damage, and that he was paid only crop compensation (₹2,97,621) instead of land compensation. The respondent KPTCL argues that a 18-meter easement zone exists below the transmission line where no permanent structures can be built, and disputes the petitioner's entitlement to additional land compensation. The court found that KPTCL has not provided land compensation as required and adjourned the case for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case