A court must provide a reasoned decision when adjudicating compensation claims, and failure to do so constitutes a jurisdictional error, warranting appellate intervention.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. K. P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 in case No. Civil Misc (Telegraph) 01 of 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, are that the petitioners filed their application under Section-16(3) read with Section-10 proviso (b) of the Indian TELEGRAPH ACT with their prayer for passing order for payment of appropriate and adequate enhanced compensation and damages with interest.

4. Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in their respective lands as described in the schedule of the petition, they planted various valuable trees and their generated income through these fruit bearing trees were the source for maintaining their livelihood. The respondents had drawn 400 K.V. D/C Silchar Purba Kanchanbari Transmission Line over the lands of the petitioners during the year 2013-2014 causing damage of trees described in their schedule of the petition and thereby by claimed their respective amount as per notification dated 22.09.1999 of the Government of Tripura.

5. According to the petitioners, the respondents paid only Rs.6,96,737/- in total to the petitioners which though inadequate, but the cheques of the said amount were accepted by the illiterate, rustic tribal petitioners under protest signing on the printed format of the respondents without knowing its contents.

6. It has also been submitted by Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that the petitioners due to bona fide mistake they filed a civil suit bearing No. MS 8 of 2014 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kailashahar on 08.08.2014 on the said subject matter and the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.12.2016 for want of jurisdiction and the decree was signed on 12.01.2017 and thus, the petitioners were entitled to exemption from limitation of the entire period spent in that suit under Section-14 of the LIMITATION ACT read with Order-VII Rule-6 of CPC.

7. However, after receipt of the summons the respondents filed their written objection jointly stating that the respondent-Power Grid is authorized under the Indian TELEGRAPH ACT and Electricity Act for placing electric line for transmission for electricity but, as no land was acquired for the purpose, the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation for the price of the land. It has been further stated that the petitioners are only liable to pay compensation for damage of the cost of property under Section10(b) of the India TELEGRAPH ACT and up to that extent they made compensation to the petitioners for damage of crops and tress by serving notice to the land owners and the petitioners also received the full compensation for their damage by cheques on different dates for an amount and those amounts were received by the petitioners without any objection and with their full satisfaction.

8. After framing of issues for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the claimant-petitioners adduced their evidence and submitted documentary evidence in support of their claim. Thereafter hearing both sides, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 29th August, 2018 in case No. Civil Misc (Telegraph) 01 of 2017 without an