2025 Supreme(SC) 1226

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known As Kalpataru Projects International
Ltd.) – Appellants
Versus
Vinod And Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 10882-10888 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No(s).14936-14942 of 2023)
With
Jhajjar K.T. Transco Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rati Ram And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s).10889-10890 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No(s).14926-14927 of 2023)
With
Vinod And Ors. Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. And Ors. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s).10891-10892 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No(s).18246-18247 of 2025)
Decided on : 19-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Damages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towers – For determining rights of various parties to receive compensation in case there is inter se dispute, certain amount of evidence would be required.
(2) Applying uniform rate for entire transmission corridor would not be a proper methodology for assessing fair compensation to which landowners are entitled.

Headnote:

(A) Telegraph Act, 1885 – Section 16 – Damages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towers – Claim for more compensation by landowners – Landowners whose land is utilized for right of way by Contractor for drawing high-tension lines and for erection of towers are entitled to be compensated adequately – Compensation has been calculated on the basis of Collector’s rate, which will be a matter of evidence pertaining to each area where land is situated – Collector rate referred by High Court pertained to only district Sonepat – There was no evidence on record produced by landowners to that extent – Locational advantage cannot be uniformly applied to entire transmission corridor, as transmission line is running through 100 kms in different districts and villages with vastly different characteristics – Applying uniform rate for entire transmission corridor would not be a proper methodology for assessing fair compensation to which landowners are entitled to – Order passed by High Court cannot be legally sustained, same is set aside and matters remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (Paras 15, 16 and 20)

(B) Telegraph Act, 1885 – Sections 10 and 16 – Assessment and payment of compensation – In case of dispute regarding sufficiency of compensation, application can be filed before District Judge, within whose jurisdiction property is situated – However, 1885 Act does not provide any timeline within which such application can be filed, nor does it specify starting point of limitation for the purpose – For determining rights of various parties to receive compensation in case there is inter se dispute, certain amount of evidence would be required – In addition to no remedy of appeal being provided against order passed by District Judge, no timelines have been provided regarding payment of compensation to affected parties after right under Section 10(d) is exercised by competent authority; time during which any party can raise grievance about sufficiency of compensation so assessed – These issues need to be examined by Law Commission of India and Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, so as to determine whether a statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against judgments/orders passed under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of 1885 Act, Petroleum Act or any other similar statute. (Paras 23.2, 26 and 30.1)

Facts of the case:

Landowners before this Court are seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of damages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towers, whereas the Contractor is before this Court, challenging the amount of compensation awarded.

Findings of Court:

Remedies availed by different parties were different. In some of the cases, writ petitions were filed by the landowners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the judgment and decree of the civil Court and in some of the cases, the contractor as well as the landowners filed petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reappreciation of evidence in those proceedings may be an issue. Remedy may not be effective and can become illusionary.

Result : Civil appeals disposed of.