The court emphasized the necessity of framing the issue of limitation, stating it is fundamental to jurisdiction; failure to assess it leads to a quashed decision.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner namely, M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., being aggrieved by the impugned dated Judgment 21.09.2022, passed by the Learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Misc. (P.G.) Case No. 86/2006, in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 10/16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Section 42/51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and under Section 23/24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The brief fact of the present petition is that the petitioner is a Government of India Enterprise formed in the year 1991 in pursuance to a decision by the Government of India to have a separate organization with regard to transmission of electricity. Initially, the petitioner was named as the National Power Transmission Corporation (NPTC) and subsequently its name was changed to Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The petitioner Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner corporation is engaged with the responsibilities of construction, operation and maintenance of power transmission line throughout the country to form a National Power Grid, so as to mitigate the power crisis. In pursuance to the said object, the petitioner corporation undertook to construction of the 132 K.V. power transmission line from Badarpur, Assam to Bhairabi, Mizoram in the Hailakandi district.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in exercise of power vested under Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 vide Gazette Notification and vide authority extended by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi vide memo dated 07.02.1997, the petitioner Corporation constructed transmission tower for laying down power lines from Badarpur, Assam to Bhairabi, Mizoram and in course of the aforesaid work, the petitioner corporation constructed transmission tower LOC. Nos. 243 to 244 and also stringed on the said towers. In the process, damage was caused to some plants and trees of the private respondent and accordingly, assessment of surface damage compensation of Rs. 5,179/- was made by the Revenue Authority, Hailakandi which was paid by the petitioner through cheque and was accepted by the respondent in presence of his own witnesses. But to utter surprise of the petitioner, after more than 7 years, in the year 2006, without any proper justification, the respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi under Section 10/16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42/51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and under Section 23/24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.1,85,57,000/- which was registered as Misc. Case No.86/2006. In the aforesaid petition, it was alleged that some trees were cut and removed and the petitioner was asked to shift his residence which he had accordingly, done. However, the authorities did not record the loss sustained. In the petition, no explanation or reasons, whatsoever were cited for such delay in filing the application and the claim of damages was imaginary and exorbitant.

5. On receipt of notice of the aforesaid case filed by the respondent, the petitioner filed its written objection before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, denying the statements and claims made by the respondent. Further, the plea of limitation was specifically taken. It