The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of compensation by the District Judge under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act is final, subject to the right to recover compensation by suit, and that a revision does not lie against the determination of compensation by the District Judge under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act.

Balakrishna Menon, J.

Both these revision petitions are by the Kerala State Electricity Board against the orders of the District Court passed under S.16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 The District Judge by these impugned orders determined the compensation payable to the respective claimants on applications made by them under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act read with S.51 of the Electricity Act, 1910. In both the cases compensation was claimed for the trees cut as well as for diminution in value of the land for the reason of the drawal of overhead power lines across the land. The learned District Judge has allowed compensation under both the heads based on the revised valuation statements submitted by the respective claimants.

2. The learned single judge before whom these cases came up for hearing had some doubt as to whether compensation for injurious affection can also be awarded in addition to compensation for the trees cut determined on the basis of capitalisation of income. These cases were accordingly referred for decision by a Division Bench.

3. A preliminary objection is raised by counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the revision petitions in view of the decision of a learned single judge in Kerala State Electricity Board. Thampi (1988(2) KLT 941). The learned judge, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Aundal Animal v. Sadasivan Filial (1987 (1) KLT 53 - AIR 1987 SC 203) and South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S.B. Samp Singh (AIR 1965 SC 1442) has held that no revision lies against the determination of compensation by the District Judge under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act. The learned judge felt that an earlier decision of this Court by Viswanatha Iyer J. in K.S.E. Board v. C.G. Narayanan (1973 KLT 968) does not cover the point regarding the maintainability of the revision and as the point, according to the learned judge, is res integra, it was open to him to consider the question in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above.

4. The decision in South Asia Industries' case related to the question whether an appeal is maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a single judge of the High Court in appeal under S.39(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As per S.39(1) an appeal lies 10 the High Court from an order of the Rent Control Tribunal established under the Act. S.43, however, enacted that every order made by the Controller or an order passed on an appeal under the Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. As per clause 37 of the Letters Patent a right of appeal under clause 10 would be taken away by a law made by the appropriate legislature. Construing S.43 the Supreme Court stated at page 1447:

"(17) The expression "final" prima facie connotes that an order passed on appeal under the Act is conclusive and no further appeal lies against it. The last sentence in S.43 of the Act, in our view, does not restrict the scope of the said expression; indeed, the said sentence imposes a further bar. The expression "final" in the first part of S.43 of the Act puts an end to a further appeal and the words "shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding" bar collateral proceedings. The section imposes a total bar. The correctness of the judgment in appeal cannot be questioned by way of appeal or by way of collateral proceedings. It is true that the expression "final" may have a restrictive meaning in other contexts, but in S.43 of the Act such a restrictive meaning cannot be given, for Ch. VI of the Act provides for a hierarchy of tribunals for deciding disputes arising thereunder. The Act is a self-contained one and the intention of the Legislature was to provide an exhaustive code for disposing of the appeals arising under the Act. The opening words S.43 of the Act "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act" e