In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the District Judge, and not the District Magistrate (DM), is the competent authority to decide disputes regarding the adequacy of compensation under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. This clarification was made in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., and was reiterated by the High Court in Rajendra Prasad & Others v. District Magistrate, Bareilly & Another.
“If a dispute arises regarding the sufficiency or adequacy of compensation paid under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, then the aggrieved parties may approach the District Judge of the said jurisdiction where the affected property is situated.” – Allahabad High Court
Read also: Writ Court Can Examine De Facto Possession Of Surplus Land If Facts Are Clear: Allahabad High Court
Background of the Case
The case pertains to the implementation of the Northern Region System Strengthening Scheme-XXI, involving the laying of a 400 kV transmission line between Bareilly and Saharanpur. The project was undertaken by Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL), a central government utility operating under the authority granted by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Petitioners, small-scale farmers from Bareilly, alleged they received inadequate compensation for the damages caused to their lands due to the erection of electric poles and towers. Though PGCIL had issued cheques in 2015 for tree-cutting compensation, no formal award was made for land damage under the newly introduced Central Government policy of 2015.
- 2011-2019: The transmission project was implemented, and the lines were laid.
- 2014-2015: Notices for tree cutting were sent to landowners, and compensation cheques were issued.
- 2016-2018: Farmers filed multiple writ petitions claiming disparity in compensation.
- 2019: A Central Government policy for land compensation (dated October 15, 2015) was implemented in Uttar Pradesh from November 19, 2019.
- 2020: Petitioners submitted fresh representations based on this policy, which were not acted upon by the DM.
The policy, though framed in 2015, was made effective in Uttar Pradesh only after the PGCIL requested its implementation through a letter dated June 20, 2019. It was officially implemented via the Chief Secretary's letter on November 19, 2019.
“The policy directs payment of 85% of the land value under tower bases in addition to compensation for trees.” – Policy Implementation Letter, Chief Secretary, U.P.
However, by this time, the project had already been completed, leading to legal ambiguity about retrospective application.
The High Court noted that the compensation previously granted was made suo moto under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act by PGCIL, without any formal award from the District Magistrate or District Judge. This nullifies the argument that earlier reliefs were granted under Section 18(2) which covers only tree compensation.
“No award was passed under Section 18(2) by the Magistrate. Hence, only the District Judge under Section 16(3) has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such compensation issues.” – Allahabad High Court
The court also emphasized that the power to decide such disputes cannot lie with the District Magistrate, even if they had earlier acted in administrative capacities following court orders.
- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.
- Supreme Court held that the District Judge is the authority for compensation disputes under the Telegraph Act.
- Prem Pal v. State of U.P.
- The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court confirmed that dissatisfied landowners must approach the District Judge for compensation enhancement.
“The Authority is bound to pay compensation… and dissatisfied persons may approach the District Judge.” – Prem Pal v. State of U.P.
The petitioners contended that:
- Their earlier petitions were for tree compensation, not land.
- The 2015 policy grants new rights to compensation for land.
- As no prior formal order or award for land compensation was passed, they had a fresh cause of action.
- Filing under Section 16(3) wasn’t possible earlier due to lack of initial determination.
They cited recent judgments such as:
- Kukreja Construction Co. v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that vested rights cannot be extinguished retroactively.
- Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, where it was emphasized that acquisition must follow constitutional safeguards under Article 300-A.
PGCIL argued that:
- The petitioners had already received compensation and thus were barred from claiming again.
- The policy is not retrospective.
- The writ was barred by delay and the principles of constructive res judicata.
- The only remedy was to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3), not the DM.
They also referenced the Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma judgment, arguing that claims were time-barred as per the three-year limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
The Allahabad High Court held that:
- Compensation paid earlier was not under Section 18(2) and had no legal backing through an award.
- The proper forum for grievance redressal regarding sufficiency of compensation is the District Judge under Section 16(3).
- The writ petition was not maintainable due to the alternative statutory remedy available.
“Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of on the ground of an alternative remedy available under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act.” – High Court
The petitioners were thus directed to file appropriate applications before the District Judge for their grievances.
Case Title: Rajendra Prasad And Others v. District Magistrate, Bareilly And Another [WRIT-C NO. 25120 OF 2020]
