SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
M/S A.D. HYDRO POWER LTD – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR AND ANR – Respondent
CMPMO/183/2021



Petitioner Advocates:Shalini Thakur Parveen Kumar Chandel ,Respondent Advocate: Vinod Kumar Thakur Raman Jamalta Mohar Singh Raman Jamalta Paras Dhaulta Abhinav Mohan Goel

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • practice and procedure
    • jurisdiction
      • lack of inherent jurisdiction
        • can be raised at any stage (Para 26, 27, 28)
      • determination of compensation under section 16(3) indian telegraph act
        • only district judge competent (Para 12, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
    • evidence
      • expert committee report (Para 6, 32)
  • electricity law
    • transmission lines
      • compensation for land use (Para 2, 3, 5)
  • constitutional law
    • writ jurisdiction
      • supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 (Para 8, 36)

Table of Contents

1. Dispute over compensation for high tension transmission lines laid over land under Indian Telegraph Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioner challenged Collector's jurisdiction and compensation amount; Respondents argued delay and laches. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )

3. Petition partly allowed; compensation upheld as District Judge had adjudicated; interest awarded. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 )

4. Whether the Collector has jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act?

No, only the District Judge has jurisdiction to determine sufficiency of compensation under Section 16(3). (Para 12 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )

5. Can the question of lack of inherent jurisdiction be raised at any stage of proceedings?

Yes, a decree or order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up at any stage, even in execution. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )

6. Where parties have already litigated before the District Judge under Section 16(3), can the compensation order be sustained despite the Collector lacking jurisdiction?

Yes, because the District Judge's determination under Section 16 is valid, and remanding would be futile; the compensation may be upheld on merits. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:18405

CMPMO No.183 of 2021

M/s AD Hydro Power Ltd. ...Petitioner

Versus

Rajesh Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

For the petitioner : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate

For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Dhaulta and Mr. Abhinav C Mohan Goel, Advocates.

Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge

Reserved on 21.04.2026

Date of Decision : 19.05.2026

Whether approved for reporting?1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Romesh Verma, Judge

1. The present petition arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. dated 01.10.2018, whereby the petition filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Collector, Kullu, District Kullu, dated 11.11.2013 has been affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company running its business of generating Hydro Electric Power in the name of AD Hydro Power Limited having its registered office at Village & Post Office Prini, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. and the same is being transmitted to the Central Grid of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and for this purpose 220 K.V/DC transmission line has been laid through various places of Districts Kullu, Mandi, Bilaspur and Solan by the petitioner's company and the project is in operation since, July 2010.

3. The present respondents laid claim that the present petitioner has erected 132 KV high tension line above their land whereby making it useless. It was averred that the respondents/ claimants wanted to utilize the land bearing Khasra Nos.499, 483, 493 (Khata Khatauni No. 123/127 and 154/256 situated in Phati Soil, Kothi Barshai, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. to raise construction for the commercial complex. It was averred that the Allian Duhangan Hydro Power Project has installed a Hydro project and the same has been completed and the work of laying the tower and high tension line was started by the petitioner and the land for raising the towers and laying the high tension wires of 232 KV has been taken from the different land owners including respondents. It was further averred that the present petitioner had not taken any permission in writing from the respondents and started laying the high tension wires as well as erecting towers to lay the line. The applicants/respondents had purchased the land for construction of commercial project on the suit land which was to be constructed at the estimate cost of Rs.50,27,000/-. It was further averred that due to laying of forcible high-tension wires intersecting the land of the claimants/respondents, they had to apply for the cancellation of loan which they had applied for raising the construction over the suit land. That on account of installation of the Allain Duhangan Hydro Electric Project and on account of laying of the high tension wires over and above the land of the respondents/claimants, objections for the grant of compensation were filed before the Collector, Kullu, District Kullu and the copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure-P4.

4. As per the averments as made in the objections, it was averred that high tension wires of 132 KV have been laid by the petitioner without taking prior permission from the local residents including the present respondents. No prior permission was taken from the land owners and high tension wires over and above their land were installed as the height of the tower as provided in the Electricity Act should not be less than 9 meters which is 30 feet approximately. Therefore, the land which was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of making a commercial complex has become redundant. It was stated that this Court in CWP No. 513 of 2007 titled as A.D. Hydro Power Ltd. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.03.2010, has categorically directed the Deputy Commissioners of all the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top