2018 Supreme(MP) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
HEMANT GUPTA, CJ, ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Bhawani Singh & others - Appellants
Versus
M.P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd. & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 485 of 2017
Decided On : 28-02-2018
For the Appellants :Shri Ram Prasad Khare, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri K.S. Wadhwa, Advocate.
The compensation for the use of land surface for transmission lines is governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, and any disputes regarding compensation are to be determined by the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Act.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 10, 16(3)
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the order determining compensation for their land and crops, arguing that the installation of a transmission line without following the land acquisition procedure was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation for the use of land surface for the transmission line is governed by Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, and any dispute regarding compensation is to be determined by the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the same Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the installation of the transmission line without following the land acquisition procedure was legal, and whether the compensation should be determined by the District Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the installation of the transmission line did not amount to land acquisition under the Electricity Act, and the compensation for land use was to be determined under the Telegraph Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the appellants were given four weeks to seek recourse for determination of compensation from the Court of District Judge.
Hemant Gupta, CJ.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 06.02.2017 whereby the writ petition bearing W.P. No.19895/2016 filed by the appellants to determine compensation of land and to crop and to quash the order dated 17.11.2016 whereby the Collector has determined the amount of compensation for the crops standing on the land of the appellants, has been allowed in part.
2. The appellants are owners of land bearing part of Survey No.283 measuring area 0.275 Hectare situate at village Tamot, Tehsil Goharganj, District Raisen. In the said village, a Yarn plant has been established by M/s Sagar Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. The said plant has been given 33 KV electric line by M.P. Power Transmission Company Ltd. However, the manufacturer applied for supply of electricity through 132 KV Sub-Station. To establish such 132 KV Sub-Station, the project of installation of transmission line has been approved by the State Government.
3. On an application filed by respondent No.1, the Collector determined the amount of compensation payable to the land owners vide order dated 17.11.2016. It is the said order, which was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Bench. The learned Single Bench set aside the said order holding that the amount of compensation has to be determined by the District Judge in terms of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (in short “the Telegraph Act”), which is applicable to the erection of the transmission line in terms of Sections 68, 69 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short “the Electricity Act”). The learned Single Bench found that the provisions of Section 68 of the Electricity Act or Sections 12 and 16 of the Telegraph Act do not deal with determination of amount of compensation but provide for permission/approval for installation of the overhead lines. It is the Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act which envisages that in the event there is any dispute regarding insufficiency of the compensation, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, is to determine the same.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the land has been acquired for the purposes of transmission line without following the procedure prescribed for acquisition of the land, which is applicable in terms of Section 165 of the Electricity Act, therefore, the entire action of the respondents in installing the transmission line is not legal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal.
6. The acquisition of land deprives the owner of the title and possession of the land whereas installation of overhead transmission line deprives the owner of user of the surface of the land. For such user, the compensation is contemplated under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act. If the amount of compensation is found inadequate, liberty is given to an aggrieved party to seek adjudication of the amount of compensation from the Court of District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The relevant provisions of the Telegraph Act read as under:-
“10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.—The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property:
Provided that—
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained;
(b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of an