Writ petitioners must substantiate claims of inadequate compensation and approach the appropriate jurisdiction for disputes related to compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. U. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions and Mr. N. C. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Power Grid Corporation of India. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, the learned Junior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Assam as well as the District Administration.

2. The grievance of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions are that the Respondent Power Grid Corporation of India has been undertaking erection of High Voltage Transmission Line from Balipara to Bongaigaon since 2009 onwards and these Petitioners belong to some 41 villages and they claim to be affected.

3. It is pertinent to observe from the pleadings of the Petitioners that no material particulars have been stated as to how the Petitioners claimed to be affected or for that matter whether in their plot of land, any erection was carried out.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that while making payment of compensation for Zirat, the Power Grid Corporation of India had paid some of the person compensation of Zirat of only 23-25 meters of right of way area in 400 KV DC Balipara, Bongaigaon Transmission Line. It is the case of the Petitioners that the said amount should have been much more by calculating the Right of Way at 46 meters.

5. It is the further case of the Petitioners as would be seen from Paragraph No.9 of WP(C) No.1741/2024 that the Respondent Power Grid Corporation of India had denied the Petitioners the rate fixed by the competent authority and had paid rates much lower than what ought to have been paid. In other words, the Petitioners admit that some form compensation was paid. The Petitioners herein therefore have approached this Court seeking certain similar directions as have been passed by the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court.

6. This Court has duly perused the orders passed by the learned Coordinate Benches of this Court and also perused the materials placed before this Court in the two proceedings.

7. The two writ petitions are bereft of material particulars as to how the Petitioners have been affected or where the land of the Petitioners are situated or as to any power transmission lines have been laid over the lands of the Petitioners. It is also seen that though the Petitioners admit that they have received compensation but they have not mentioned when such compensation was received.

8. Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 permits a person who is aggrieved by the insufficiency of the compensation to approach the learned District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated and be determined by him. The Petitioners have not approached the learned District Judge within whose jurisdiction the lands of the Petitioners are situated.

9. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma , (1976) 4 SCC 634 wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that an application to be filed before the learned District Judge in terms with Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the provisions of Article 137 of the Third Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply.

10. Taking into account the above, as the writ petitions are completely vague when the Petitioners have received the compensation, it would not be in the interest of justice to direct the Respondent Authorities to re-determine the compensation or consider re-determination of the compensation, so that a matter which stood foreclosed by operatio