The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the District Judge to determine compensation under S.16 of the Telegraph Act and the sufficiency of the compensation, as well as the correct determination of compensation for damages caused by drawing electric lines over the property.

Headnote:
Telegraph Act - Compensation under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51, Electricity Act, 1910 - S.16, S.51, S.34 - The court discussed the sufficiency of compensation under S.16 and the jurisdiction of the District Judge to act as a persona designata or in a purely judicial capacity. The court held that the District Judge functions in a judicial capacity as a District Court and that a revision under S.115 C.P.C. will lie. The court also analyzed the determination of compensation for damages caused by drawing electric lines over the property and concluded that the lower court had clearly gone wrong in finding the net yield of the tree per year. The court modified the orders passed by the lower court and determined the compensation payable to the applicant in the three cases.
Fact of the Case:

The applications were filed for compensation under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51, Electricity Act, 1910, for damages caused by the taking over of property for electricity supply. The District Judge determined the compensation, which was challenged by the Kerala Electricity Board in three revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Judge functions in a judicial capacity as a District Court and that a revision under S.115 C.P.C. will lie. The court also concluded that the lower court had clearly gone wrong in finding the net yield of the tree per year and modified the orders passed by the lower court to determine the compensation payable to the applicant in the three cases.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the District Judge to determine compensation and the sufficiency of the compensation under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, as well as the correctness of the determination of compensation for damages caused by drawing electric lines over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Judge functions in a judicial capacity as a District Court and that a revision under S.115 C.P.C. will lie. The court also concluded that the lower court had clearly gone wrong in finding the net yield of the tree per year and modified the orders passed by the lower court to determine the compensation payable to the applicant in the three cases.
Final Decision: The three revision petitions were allowed in part and dismissed in other respects. The court modified the orders passed by the lower court and determined the compensation payable to the applicant in the three cases. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Judgment :-

1. These three revision petitions arise out of three applications, O. P. Nos. 76/70, 77/70 and 78/70 on the file of the District Court, Trichur. Those three applications were considered jointly and a consolidated order was passed by the District Judge and in this Court also I am considering all these together in this order.

2. These applications were filed before the District Judge, Trichur, for compensation under S.16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with S.51, Electricity Act, 1910. For supply of electricity electric lines were taken over the property involved in these cases by the Electricity Board who is the respondent in all the three applications. According to the petitioner, who is the same in all the applications, on account of taking electric lines over his property 25 coconut trees have been cot from it and he has suffered damage on account of it. He also claimed damages for the diminution of the value of the portion of the property underneath the electric lines. Again be also claimed damages for the loss of one cent of land, rendered useless by the construction of a tower in it. As stated earlier, the learned District Judge, Trichur, considered these claims and determined the compensation to be paid to the applicant in all the three applications. Aggrieved by that the Kerala Electricity Board has filed these three revision petitions.

3. Two points arise for consideration in this case. One is whether this Court is entitled to interfere in revision with the order passed by the District Judge determining the compensation payable under the Telegraph Act read with the Electricity Act. The second question is whether the determination of compensation made by the District Judge is legally sustainable. As regards the first question the respondent's counsel referred me to sub-section 3 of S.16 of the Telegraph Act which runs as follows:

"S. 16 (3). If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under S.10, Clause (1), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him."

and submitted that the District Judge is to act in these matters as a persona designata rather than in a purely judicial capacity. His further submission was that as the District Judge is only a persona designata in these matters his order cannot be revised under S.115 CPC. as be is not acting as a court in the discharge of his duties in disposing of these applications. According to the revision petitioner, the District judge is required to act only as a court and not as a persona designata in considering these applications and that will be clear from the scope of the various provisions of the Telegraph Act relating to the determination and apportionment of compensation by the District Judge.

4. Though this Court considered revision petitions like these previously the question of maintainability of such revisions is not seen raised or decided by this Court [See Electricity Board v. Thomas (1961 KLT. 236) and Electricity Boards. Tharakan & others (1968 KLT. 493)]. This does not mean that it cannot be raised now or decided. So I shall proceed to consider the question.

5. The District Judge, when that expression is used in a Central Act means, as per the General Clauses Act 1887, the judge of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction other than the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, unless there is anything repugnant in the context. Ordinarily he functions as a judge of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. He has not been appointed under any provision of the Electricity Act or the Telegraph Act as a Tribunal to decide this question. There is nothing particular in subsection (3) of S.16 also to suggest that the District Judge is intended to act as otherwise than in a judicial capacity when determining the amount of compensation. The matter that he is called up

Click Here to Read the rest of this document