The District Judge has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensation claims under the Telegraph Act, and petitioners must pursue this remedy instead of filing a writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners are praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the District Magistrate, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent no.1’) to decide their representation dated September 30, 2020.

FACTS

2. Factual matrix of the instant writ petition is delineated below:

a) The petitioners are small-scale farmers who own agricultural land in District Bareilly. A scheme for Northern Region System Strengthening Scheme-XXI (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheme’) for laying a 400 kV Bareilly-Kashipur-Roorkee- Saharanpur D/C (Quad) transmission line was approved by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, under its authority granted by Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, vide notification dated November 16, 2009.

b) In pursuance of this notification, the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PGCIL’), an undertaking of the Government of India, was granted authority for the project. In exercise of its powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Telegraph Act’), selected the petitioners' land alongwith some other villagers for the erection of poles/towers and laying down transmission lines for execution of the scheme. The project was supposedly started in the year 2011 and was completed in 2019 as contended by petitioners.

c) In 2014, PGCIL issued separate notices to the respective petitioners under Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 read with Part III of the Telegraph Act, regarding the cutting of trees for laying down of transmission lines within 30 days of receipt of the notice. PGCIL also requested the Tehsildar or concerned government department to determine the compensation for Right of Way (RoW) arising from laying down of the transmission line, which was to be paid by PGCIL.

A copy of the aforementioned notice was also forwarded to the Tehsildar and the Additional District Magistrate for determination of compensation.

d) Subsequently, in 2015, PGCIL issued separate cheques of varying amounts to the petitioners as compensation.

e) Meanwhile, some other farmers from the same district filed writ petition no. 26594 of 2016 (Dharam Pal v. State of U.P.), alleging that they have received less compensation compared to the farmers in adjacent District of Rampur. This writ petition, being premature, was disposed of vide order dated May 30, 2016, with a direction to petitioners to approach respondent no.1 for the determination of compensation for both land as well as trees.

f) In compliance of the aforementioned order, respondent no.1 passed an order dated July 13, 2016 observing disparity in compensation between the farmers in District Rampur and Bareilly. Consequently, PGCIL was directed to provide compensation to farmers in Bareilly at par with those in Rampur. This order was further modified o