SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 1019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
M/s. Suzlon Energy Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Jayanthi & Ors. Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6961 of 2021(Arising out of SLP (Civil*) No.7609 of 2021)
Decided on : 18-11-2021

Headnote:

Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 16(1), 17, 17(2) – Compensation – Leave granted – Appeal challenges judgment and order passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras – Instant proceedings arise out of Writ Petition filed by respondents challenging order passed by third respondent in writ petition, granting permission to present appellant to erect electric towers in lands of writ petitioners, under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Held, While allowing this appeal and setting-aside order passed by Division Bench of High Court, court direct as under – Submissions recorded by this Court in its order shall be binding on appellant, subject to modification that instead of “300 per cent more compensation”, appellant shall pay “500 per cent more compensation” to affected parties – Let issue of compensation be determined by concerned authority in accordance with law – Concerned authority (14th respondent) shall do well to dispose of matter in that behalf as early as possible and preferably within two months from today – As and when such compensation is determined, the appellant shall pay 500 per cent more compensation to affected parties within six weeks – Other undertakings recorded in form of submissions recorded (b) and (c) in order shall be scrupulously observed – Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Appeal challenges order granting permission to erect electric towers under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (!) (!) . - Compensation initially set at 300 per cent, modified to 500 per cent by Supreme Court (!) (!) . - Issue of compensation to be determined by concerned authority in accordance with law (!) . - Concerned authority shall dispose of matter within two months from order date (!) . - Appellant must pay 500 per cent more compensation within six weeks of determination (!) . - Status quo to be maintained pending completion of enquiry under Section 17(2) (!) . - Other undertakings recorded in submissions (b) and (c) must be scrupulously observed (!) . - Appeal allowed, previous order set aside, no order as to costs (!) .

What is the compensation percentage the appellant must pay to affected parties?

How should the issue of compensation be determined?

What are the timeframes for compensation determination and payment?


ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 06.05.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.1365 of 2021.

3. The instant proceedings arise out of Writ Petition No.15896 of 2020 filed by the respondents challenging the order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the third respondent in the writ petition, granting permission to the present appellant to erect electric towers in the lands of the writ petitioners, under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

4. Various grievances were raised by the original writ petitioners which did not find any favour with the Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of its order which were to the following effect:

    “4. Though there does not appear to be any infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 in W.P. No.15896 of 2020 upholding permission granted to the Ninth Respondent under Section 16(1) of the Act to enter upon the property of the Appellants to erect the electric towers in the respective lands of the Appellants, it would be necessary at this juncture to refer to Section 17 of the Act, which reads as follows:-

    17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post, on property other than that of a local authority:-

    (1) When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or altered in from, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line of post accordingly:

    Provided that, if compensation has been paid under section 10, clause (d), he shall, when making the requisition, tender to the telegraph authority the amount requisite to defray the expense of the removal or alteration, or half of the amount paid as compensation, whichever may be the smaller sum.

    (2) If the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situate to order the removal or alteration.

    (3) A District Magistrate receiving an application under sub-section (2) may, in his discretion, reject the same or make an order, absolutely or subject to conditions, for the removal of the telegraph line or post to any other part of the property or to a higher or lower level or for the alteration of its form;

    and the order so made shall be final.

    It is evident from the same that even after enter upon permission has been granted under Section 16(1) of the Act, a land owner is entitled to make an application to the jurisdictional District Magistrate for removing or re-locating the electric towers that have been erected under Section 17 of the Act. Having regard to the pragmatic considerations of cost effectiveness and time saving measures in the larger public interest, it would be appropriate at this stage taking into account the aforesaid rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties that that enquiry under section 17(2) of the Act can be immediately conducted by the Third Respondent to examine all the contentions that are raised by the Appellants, including as to whether the Ninth Respondent is an Authority entitled to invoke section 16 of the Act, the route for locating the electric towers, the amount of compensation payable and the compromise said to have been entered by the Ninth Respondent with the Appellants. In view of that proposed enquiry, the further implementation of the orders in Na.Ka.No.6450/2020/E5 dated 08.10.2020 passed by the Third Respondent under section 16(1) of the Act shall be kept in abeyance and the parties shall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top