High Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Compensation Disputes Under Telegraph Act

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling concerning compensation for land affected by telegraph infrastructure projects, has clarified that the limitation period for filing claims under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, commences not from the date of receiving initial compensation, but from the date the dispute regarding the sufficiency of compensation arises.

A batch of civil revision petitions filed by power transmission companies, including North East Transmission Company Limited and Power Grid Corporation of India Limited , challenging compensation orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Hailakandi , were dismissed by the single bench of Justice Devashis Baruah on March 25, 2025.

The petitioners had primarily argued that the compensation applications filed by the landowners under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 were barred by limitation. Citing Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the companies contended that the three-year limitation period should start from the date the landowners received the initial compensation. They also argued that the landowners, having received compensation without protest, forfeited their right to seek enhanced compensation.

Conversely, counsel for the landowners submitted that under Article 137, the right to apply accrues when the dispute arises. They contended that the dispute arose when their representations seeking sufficient compensation were not addressed by the authorities. They also highlighted that the lower court orders had acknowledged their representations.

Justice Baruah , after hearing the arguments and examining the provisions of Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, held that Section 16(3) allows an application when "any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation." The court observed that unlike provisions in other laws like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 16 does not specify a limitation period or explicitly bar applications if compensation is received without protest.

The judgment noted: > "Under such circumstances, if Article 137 of the Act of 1963 is conjunctly read with Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885, it would, therefore, be seen that the right to apply and file the application would arise only when there is a dispute which had arisen for determination as regards the insufficiency of the compensation."

The Court found that the lower court orders had correctly noted that the claimants had made representations regarding the insufficiency of compensation, and the power companies had failed to adduce evidence demonstrating when they rejected these representations. The non-consideration of these representations was deemed the point at which the dispute arose, triggering the right to apply under Section 16(3).

Regarding the argument that compensation was received without protest, the Court held this submission was "misconceived on two counts." First, Section 16(3) itself does not contain such a bar. Second, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence proving that the claimants had admitted in writing that the tendered amount was sufficient.

The Court also briefly acknowledged the submission that in some cases, liability might have been wrongly attributed between North East Transmission Company Limited and Power Grid Corporation of India Limited . The Court granted the petitioners liberty to file review applications before the Additional District Judge, Hailakandi within 30 days to agitate this specific issue, if necessary.

Ultimately, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the compensation orders passed by the Additional District Judge, Hailakandi , emphasizing that Section 16(3) is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at ensuring just and fair compensation for affected persons. All the connected civil revision petitions were accordingly dismissed.