The determination of compensation under the Telegraph Act must be by the District Judge, a Judge of the principal civil Court of original civil jurisdiction. The Additional District Judge is a Judge of the same Court and can lawfully discharge the functions of the District Judge under section 3-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises two questions : One is a mixed question of law and fact and the other which is of some importance is a question relating to jurisdiction. The first question is whether the compensation awarded is full compensation within the meaning of section 10 (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885) (which will hereafter be called the Act) and is determined on a correct legal basis. The second question is, whether the determination of such compensation by an Additional District Judge is in the eye of law, a determination by a District Judge within the meaning of section 16 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are these. The Electricity Department laid electric transmission lines through the fields of the petitioner and also others. The trees under the said line as a result had to be cut. By this act, the petitioner happened to suffer damage to some of his trees in Survey Numbers 267/3 and 268/1. The trees alleged to be so cut were in all 32 coconut trees, three babul trees and a date and a palmyra tree and the branches of a big mango tree. After they were cut, they were taken away by the Electricity Department. The Telegraph Act of course legalises civil trespass of the kind but provides for payment of full compensation for the damage done. The petitioner was informed that the concerned authorities had fixed a sum of Rs. 250 for the trees cut. But, having regard to the magnitude of the damage, the sum offered, in the opinion of the petitioner, was but paltry. As the dispute relating to the sufficiency of compensation was justiciable even under the clear provisions of the Act in the forum prescribed by the Act, the petitioner, in compliance with the statute, made an application to the District judge claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,203.

( 3 ) THE District Judge transferred the proceedings to the file of the Additional district Judge, who, on the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that 32 coconut trees and 7 big branches of a mango tree of the petitioner were cut and the trees so cut were taken away by the Electricity Department. He further found that each coconut tree thus cut was expected to yield about 100 coconuts at the maximum per year and that these trees were about 40 years old and would, in the normal circumstances, yield fruits for about 20 years more. Having thus determined the number of trees cut and their expected period and extent of yield, he proceeded to assess their market value. On the evidence of the karnam, he came to the conclusion that the market value of Ac. 1-00 of land with 60 or 70 such trees thereon was Rs. 2,000. On this basis, he proposed to determine the compensation. As the trees cut were only 32 and the land remained with the petitioner as ever, he held that a sum of Rs. 1,000 could constitute full compensation for the damage sustained by the plaintiff as a result of felling the trees. In the result, he gave a decree for rs. 1,000 besides the statutory interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum from the date when the trees were cut by the respondent. It is this order that is called in question by the petitioner.

( 4 ) SRI Balaparameswari Rao, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that. the basis adopted cannot be said to be a proper legal basis for assessment of compensation in such cases. According to him, the true dependable basis can be found only in the method of capitalisation of annual net income from the trees at ten years purchase. In support of this contention, he relies on shanmuga Velayuda v. Collector of Tanjore, A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 945. . That was a case under Land Acquisition Act which is a self-contained enactment embodying also provisions concerning the mode of assessment of compensation. The Telegraph Act, however, makes no such provision. All that it says is that the petitioner is entitled to full compensation and this compensation on dispute being raised shall be determined

Click Here to Read the rest of this document