HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 446 of 2011

08 January, 2026

Anil Saran and Others --Petitioners

Versus

Power Grid Corporation India Ltd & Anr. --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Ashish Belwal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.

Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for petitioners.

Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for

respondents.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by petitioners challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Champawat, in Misc. Case No.11 of 2008 Anil Saran and Others Vs. Power Grid Corporation and Another, whereby, the application moved by petitioners under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) for enhancement of the compensation was rejected on the ground that the compensation, which was been paid to petitioners, was paid on the basis of compromise entered into between the

parties.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent- Power Grid Corporation has started the work of laying the high tension line over the land of the petitioners, which gave rise to filing an Original Suit No.09 of 2005 Anil Saran And Others Vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. And Another, for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent-Power Grid Corporation not to lay high tension line over the land of the petitioners. Aforesaid Original Suit was decided on the terms of compromise entered into between the parties on 22.05.2005 in the Lok Adalat, Champawat and it was agreed that the respondent-Power Grid Corporation shall

pay adequate compensation to the petitioners and they will not claim any further compensation. In the said compromise, amount of compensation was not determined.

3. The respondent-Power Grid Corporation has assessed the loss caused to petitioners and decided to pay a sum of Rs.2,39,120/- as compensation to the petitioners and the said compensation was paid and received by the petitioners under protest. Petitioners thereafter moved an application under Section 16(3) of the Act before the learned District Judge, Champawat, regarding inadequacy of the compensation and prayed for its enhancement.

4. Said application was dismissed by learned District Judge, Champawat, vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that application was dismissed by learned District Judge only on the premise that the amount of compensation was arrived at on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties, therefore, no case for enhancement was made out in favour of the petitioners.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioners that Section 16 (3) of the Act gives right in case of dispute concerning the sufficiency of the compensation, and therefore, the application was well maintainable coupled with the fact that at the time of compromise, no amount of compensation was determined.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents- Power Grid Corporation submits that sufficient compensation has been paid to the petitioners and the compromise arrived at between the parties was duly signed by petitioners and now they cannot step back on the compromise.

8. Having heard learned for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as the compromise arrived at between the parties this Court is of the firm opinion that though on the basis of compromise, it was decided that a sum of Rs.2,39,120/- shall be paid as compensation to the petitioners, but, since no amount was determined by the parties in compromise, therefore, the respondents-Power Grid Corporation cannot be let free by paying an amount of Rs.2,39,120/- to the petitioners for damage caused due to laying high tension line over their property. The situation would be different if the compromise would have