An Additional District Judge is deemed a District Judge for jurisdictional purposes under the Indian Telegraph Act, allowing them to determine compensation.

1. These two petitions have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment since identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions.

2. By way of filing the present two petitions under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have asked this Court to interfere with the order dated 18.02.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District in connection with Civil Misc. case No.02 of 2015 and Civil Misc. case No.129 of 2014 respectively.

3. Solitary question to be decided in these two petitions is that whether an Additional District Judge can entertain and determine compensation admitting an application under S.10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885(Act 13 of 1885) (here - in - after referred to as the "Act") since the statute prescribes "District Judge" for such determination under S.16 of the Act. In other words, whether the determination of compensation under S.10(d) of the Act by an Additional District Judge is in the eye of law, a determination by a District Judge within the meaning of S.16 of the Act.

4. Outlining the facts briefly, the petitioners had filed their respective civil applications under S.16(3) read with S.10(d) of the Act for enhancement of compensation before the learned Additional District Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, since the respondents had constructed and erected towers for transmission of electricity from one part to another part causing damage to the trees standing over the lands of the petitioners.

5. It appears from the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 that the learned Additional District Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh had written a letter to the learned District Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura on 18.01.2021 regarding the nature of the above two cases, in response to which the learned District Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura had informed the learned Additional District Judge on 27.01.2021 to either return the case records of the cases filed under Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 to the petitioners / applicants / claimants for filing the same to the appropriate Court having jurisdiction or to write a request letter to the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala as those cases had been transmitted to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sepahijala, Bishalgarh from the Court of the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. This development was informed to the learned counsels appearing for the claimants / petitioners, who submitted that they would take appropriate steps for withdrawal and transfer all the cases from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sepahijala, Bishalgarh and requested the learned Additional District Judge not to make an order for return till appropriate steps were taken. However, this order dated 18.02.2021 had been put to challenge on the plea that the "District Judge" should not be regarded as ''persona designata'' and an Additional District Judge also has the same judicial power as is exercised by a District Judge.

6. Mrs. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Additional District Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh has ample jurisdiction to decide the applications, and S.10(d) of the Act does not contemplate any bar that an Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain such applications since the suit lands are situated within the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Additional District Judge. According to learned counsel appearing