Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
FRANCISCAN MISSIONRY BROTHERS, – Appellant
Versus
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA – Respondent
OP(C)/2075/2021
Electricity - Compensation - Indian Electricity Act, 2003; Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; Indian Electricity Supply Act - Sections 10, 16, 51 - The Court held that the District Judge has jurisdiction to determine compensation disputes under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an institution, claims ownership of properties where valuable trees were cut down by the respondent for power transmission, leading to inadequate compensation. Petitioner seeks enhancement through original petitions filed after previous dismissals based on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues: Is the District Judge the competent authority to determine disputes regarding compensation for land used for power transmission under the relevant statutory provisions?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, disputes on compensation must be addressed by the District Judge, establishing clear jurisdiction regardless of earlier dismissals.
Final Decision: The original petitions were restored, allowing the petitioner to contest the merits of the claims.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dated this the 03rd day of August, 2022 As these original petitions are between the same parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The original petitions are filed to set aside the orders in O.P(Ele)Nos.213/2009 and 8/2011 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge II, Kalpetta.
3. The petitioner's common case, in the original petitions, in brief, relevant for the determination of the original petition is : they are an institution, formed by an association of persons consisting of Christian monks, registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific Societies Registration Act 12 of 1955. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of immovable properties comprised in Survey No.353 of Thirunelli Village, Mananthavady Taluk. The respondent is engaged in transmission of power. The respondent had, in the process of drawing a 400 KV double circuit line, cut down considerable number of valuable trees standing in the property of the petitioner. As the respondent had paid only a meager amount as compensation, the petitioner filed O.P(Ele)Nos.8/2011 and 213/2009 before the Court of the District Judge, Kalpetta, for enhancement of compensation. The respondent appeared in the original petitions and filed their written objections, inter alia, contending that the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petitions. The learned District Judge, by separate Ext.P8 orders both in O.P.(C) No.2072/21 and O.P.(C) No.2075/2021, dismissed the original petitions as not pressed, as per the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The not pressed memo was filed only because the court below had earlier dismissed O.P (E)No.76/2010 as not maintainable by Ext.P7 order. The impugned orders are erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petitions.
4. Heard; Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the original petitions and Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent in both the original petitions.
5. The point is whether there is any error in the impugned Ext.P8 orders passed in both the original petitions.
6. On a reading of the averments, O.P(Ele)Nos.213/2009 and 8/2011, it is seen that the original petitions were dismissed as not pressed in the light of Ext.P7 order passed by the court below. This Court, by judgment dated 05.07.2022 in O.P.(C) No.1229 of 2020, has set aside Ext.P7 order holding it to be erroneous. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to benefit of the said judgment, especially since the petitioner had not pressed the original petitions only in the light of Ext.P7 order. Even otherwise, the original petitions were filed under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act , 2003 read with Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 and Ss.42 and 60 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act . The respondent contended in the written objections that the District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petitions in view of Act 36 of 2003.
7. Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885 reads as follows:
16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.—
(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
