The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 do not apply to compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as there is no land acquisition involved.

ORDER :

(Sunita Agarwal, J.)

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, we find that the order impugned before the learned Single Judge was passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub- Divisional Magistrate, computing compensation for the damages caused to the land owners as per Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, by applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”, for short) by inclusion of factors such as market value of the land, nature of agriculture, nature of tree etc. Before the learned Single Judge, the challenge was about applicability of the Act of 2013 in the matter of determination of damages as per Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The learned Single Judge having noticed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court about the impact of Section 68 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 over the exercise of power under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, has reached at the conclusion that the provisions of the Act of 2013 cannot apply for determination of compensation/damages under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, in as much as, there is no acquisition of land as contemplated under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

2. Mr. Devdip Brahmbhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, however, relies upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.27378 of 2019(V) dated 25.02.2020, wherein the learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in one paragraph has stated that there was no reason to accept the contention of the respondents therein as to why the respondents are not liable to grant compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement package in accordance with the Act of 2013, simply because, there is no land acquisition in the said cases. It was further directed that the petitioners therein shall be entitled to compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

3. Based on the said observations, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the observations of the Kerala High Court for application of the Act of 2013 in the matter of determination of compensation/damages for exercising the right of way over the land under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 have persuasive value. We are afraid to accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants by reading the observations made in paragraphs 10, 14 and 15 of the decision of the Kerala High Court, which read as under:-

“10. There is no dispute that no property of the petitioners are being acquired for the purpose of drawal of the transmission line as contemplated under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. Much reliance is placed by the learned counsel on Section 105 and Section 113 of the Act and also the IV Schedule of the Act to substantiate his contention that compensation will have to be assessed in tune with Act 30 of 2013. In my considered opinion, the argument raised by the petitioners have no basis.

14. The Electricity Act, 2003 has been included as item No. 12 in the IV Schedule. Section 113 enables the Central Government, in case any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions, to give directions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the difficulty and it further provides such power shall not be exercised after the expiry of a period of two years. The said provision also provides that every order made under the said Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

15. From Ext.P1 and P2 produced in W.P.(C) No.19446/2019, [Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C) No.27378/2019], it is apparent that those orders have been issued under Section 113 of Act 30 of 2013. It states that the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 relating to det