Bombay High Court
Vishnu Tukaram Salunke, vs Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd., on 25 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26352
1
fa-2404-2025+++
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2404 OF 2025
Chandrakant Pandharinath Solunke
APPELLANT
(Original Plaintiff)
VERSUS
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,
RESPONDENT
(Original Defendant)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2405 OF 2025
Bappasaheb Pandurang Salunke.
APPELLANT
(Original Plaintiff)
VERSUS
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,
RESPONDENT
(Original Defendant)
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2025
Vishnu Tukaram Salunke,
APPELLANT
(Original Plaintiff)
VERSUS
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,
RESPONDENT
(Original Defendant)
AND
2
fa-2404-2025+++
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2025
Bebibai Vishnu Salunke
APPELLANT
(Original Plaintiff)
VERSUS
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,
RESPONDENT
(Original Defendant)
______________________________________________________
Mr. K. D. Jadhav, Advocate for Appellant in respective FA
Mr. Girish Rane, Advocate for Respondents in respective FA
______________________________________________________
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25TH SEPTEMBER,2025
ORDER :
-
1. All these First Appeals have been filed by the respective
appellants therein, thereby challenging judgment and decree
passed by the learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad in their
respective proceedings titled as Civil Suit, and having been
instituted under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1885').
2. The Registry of this Court has endorsed an objection in
all these proceedings as 'First Appeals not maintainable' in
view of Section 16(3) and 16(5) of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885. Hence, the appellants have moved these appeals before
me.
fa-2404-2025+++
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2404 OF 2025:
(Presented on 13.08.2025)
a. Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss to
his agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due to
the act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 of
the Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the present
respondent before the learned District Judge-11 at
Aurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. These
proceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.11 of 2019. After
going through the evidence and hearing the concerned
parties, the learned District Judge-11, exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed a
judgment and order dated 21.02.2025, thereby directing the
respondent/corporation to pay Rs.2,232/- together with 6
percent interest per annum, to the plaintiff/appellant.
Pertinent to note that the learned District Judge-11,
Aurangabad also drew a decree on 21.02.2025, pursuant to
the judgment and order.
b. Against the judgment and decree, present appellant has
preferred this appeal.
fa-2404-2025+++
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2405 OF 2025
(Presented on 13.08.2025)
a. Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss to
his agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due to
the act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 of
the Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the present
respondent before the learned District Judge-11 at
Aurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. These
proceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.10 of 2019. After
going through the evidence and hearing the concerned
parties, the learned District Judge-11, exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed a
judgment and order dated 21.02.2025, thereby directing the
respondent/corporation to pay Rs.2,232/- together with 6
percent interest per annum, to the plaintiff/appellant.
Pertinent to note that the learned District Judge-11,
Aurangabad also drew a decree on 21.02.2025, pursuant to
the judgment and order.
b. Against the judgment and decree, present appellant has
preferred this appeal.
fa-2404-2025+++
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2025
(Presented on 13.08.2025)
a. Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss to
his agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due to
the act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 of
the Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the present
respondent before the learned District Judge-11 at
Aurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. These
proceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.8 of 2019. After going
through the evidence and hearing the concerned parties, the
learned District Judge-11, exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed a judgment and order
dated 21.02.2025, thereby directing the respondent/
corporation to pay Rs.2,232/- together with 6 percent interest
per annum, to the plaintiff/appellant. Pertinent to note that
the learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad also drew a decree
on 21.02.2025, pursuant to the judgment and order.
b. Against the judgment and decree, present appellant has
preferred this appeal.
fa-2404-2025+++
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2025
(Presented on 13.08.2025)
a. Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss to
his agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due to
the act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 of
the Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the present
respondent before the learned District Judge-11 at
Aurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. These
proceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.9 of 2019. After going
through the evidence and hearing the concerned parties, the
learned District Judge-11, exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed a judgment and order
dated 21.02.2025, thereby directing the respondent/
corporation to pay Rs.7,900/- together with 6 percent interest
per annum, to the plaintiff/appellant. Pertinent to note that
the learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad also drew a decree
on 21.02.2025, pursuant to the judgment and order.
b. Against the judgment and decree, present appellant has
preferred this appeal.
fa-2404-2025+++
3. Heard Mr. K. D. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the
appellants, who sought to convince the Court that the First
Appeals are perfectly maintainable under Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code.
4. Mr. Girish Rane, learned Advocate who usually appears
for the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. has
also marked his presence in the matter, pursuant to having
called upon by the Court for assistance.
5. Mr. K. D. Jadhav, learned Advocate in order to
demonstrate that the present proceedings are absolutely
maintainable as First Appeals under Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, submitted three points as under:
i. That, the proceeding under Section 16(3),
which was instituted at the behest of the present
appellant was registered by the learned District
Judge-11, Aurangabad as a 'Civil Suit'.
ii. That, since the proceeding was
undisputedly was a 'Civil Suit', it is rightly
disposed of under a judgment and order, which
is also accompanied by a decree.
iii. That, since the decree passed by the
learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad falls
under the definition of 'decree' as per Section 2,
fa-2404-2025+++
sub Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the
appeal under Section 96 is the only remedy for
the appellants.
iv. Last but not the least, Mr. K. D. Jadhav
further submitted that a claimant in any
compensation case, which is tried in the
original/Trial Court, must get an opportunity for
re-assessment of the evidence in an appellate
forum to demonstrate any inadequacy or
rejection of the compensation claimed by such
claimant.
6. With this, Mr. K. D. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the
appellant in all appeals submitted that the appeals are rightly
instituted under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and
that, this Court has every jurisdiction under Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code to examine correctness of the judgment
and decree impugned in the First Appeals. He therefore
requested to overrule the objection raised by the Registry.
7. Mr. Girish Rane, learned Advocate representing the
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. however submits that
the original claim trial proceeding is instituted under the Act
of 1885. That, the remedial provision to challenge the
compensation granted by the respondent/authority has been
fa-2404-2025+++
given under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 to the District
Courts. That, Section 16(5) of the Act of 1885 clearly says
that the decision of the District Courts under the proceeding
instituted under Section 16(3) and also under Section 16(4)
of the Act of 1885 shall be final. With this, Mr. Girish Rane,
learned Advocate for the respondent/corporation submits that
present First Appeals won't be maintainable in the given form
and under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.
8. Upon having heard both the parties at length, I framed
following points for consideration:
Sr. Points Findings
No.
1 Whether this Court can exercise jurisdiction No.
u/s 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against a
decision rendered by Ld. District Judge u/s
16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 if such
decision is in the form of a 'Decree' ?
2 If no, what's the fate of proceeding and As per final
what is the procedure? order.
3 What Order As per final
order
9. To answer the points framed, it would be appropriate to
look into the definition of 'decree' as well as the provision of
First Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, as
also the relevant provisions under the Act of 1885.
fa-2404-2025+++
Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an
adjudication which, so far as regards the Court
expressing it, conclusively determines the rights
of the parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in the suit and may be
either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to
include the rejection of a plaint and the
determination of any question within [3]* * *
section 144, but shall not include-
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies
as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.
Explanation-A decree is preliminary when
further proceedings have to be taken before the
suit can be completely disposed of. It is final
when such adjudication completely disposes of
the suit, it may be partly preliminary and partly
final;
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
96. Appeal from original decree (1) Save where
otherwise expressly provided in the body of this
Code or by any other law for the time being in
force, an appeal shall lie from every decree
passed by any Court exercising original
jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals
from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree
passed ex parte.
(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by
the Court with the consent of parties.
[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of
law, from a decree in any suit of the nature
fa-2404-2025+++
cognisable by Courts of Small Cause, when the
amount or value of the subject-matter of the
original suit does not exceed ten thousand
rupees.]
Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
10. Power for telegraph authority to place and
maintain telegraph lines and posts .--The
telegraph authority may, from time to time,
place and maintain a telegraph line under, over,
along or across, and posts in or upon, any
immovable property:
Provided that--
(a) the telegraph authority shall not exorcise the
powers conferred by this section except for the
purposes of a telegraph establish Ector
maintained by the 1 [Central Government], or to
be so established or maintained;
(b) the 1[Central Government] shall not acquire
any right other than that of user only in the
property under, over, along, across, in or upon
which the telegraph authority places any
telegraph line or post;
(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph
authority shall not exercise those powers in
respect of any property vested in or under the
control or management of any local authority,
without the permission of that authority; and
(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by
this section, the telegraph authority shall do as
little damage as possible, and, when it has
exercised those powers in respect of any
property other than that referred to in clause
fa-2404-2025+++
(c), shall pay full compensation to all persons
interested for any damage sustained by them by
reason of the exercise of those powers.
Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
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 (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 disputing parties to
the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the
property is situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons
entitled to receive compensation, o r as to the
proportions in which the persons interested arc
entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority
may pay into the Court of the District Judge
such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all
fa-2404-2025+++
the disputing parties have in writing admitted
the amount tendered to be sufficient or the
amount has been determined under sub-section
(3), that amount; and the District Judge, after
giving notice to the parties and hearing such of
them as desire to be heard, shall determine the
persons entitled to receive the compensation or,
as the case may be, the proportions in which the
persons interested are entitled to share in it.
(5) Every determination of a dispute by a
District Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-
section (4) shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall
affect the right of any person to recover by suit
the whole or any part of any compensation paid
by the telegraph authority, from the person who
has received the same.
10. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 16(5) of the
Act of 1885 that 'every determination of a dispute by a District
Judge under sub Section 3 and 4 of Section 16 shall be final',
meaning thereby, the Act does not provide any appellate
procedure itself, but also forbids any other statutory appellate
procedure.
11. Sub section 1 of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code
lays down that 'Save where "otherwise expressly provided" in
the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in
force', an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any
fa-2404-2025+++
Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to
hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
12. It is apparent that the provision for appeal has been
made from every 'decree' excepting the expressed provisions.
Meaning thereby, the term "otherwise expressed provision"
includes a remedial provision as also a restrictive provision in
the Code and any other Law for the time being in force as the
case may be. As such, the 'subject matter decrees' drawn by
the learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad would not fetch
any legal significance to become appealable under Section 96
of the Civil Procedure Code; nor would confer on this Court to
jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to
examine it's legality and validity/correctness as a First
Appellate Court.
13. A conjoint reading of Section 16(5) of the Act of 1885
and Section 96(1) of the Civil Procedure Code would
demonstrate that 'the decision taken by the District Courts in a
dispute referred to it or instituted before it under Section
16(3) of the Act of 1885 is held to be final', and falls out of
the purview of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. True
that the proceeding that was instituted by the respective
fa-2404-2025+++
appellants in the Court of learned District Judge-11,
Aurangabad were styled and titled as 'Civil Suits', that itself
would not create an exception to the aforesaid legal provisions
nor those provisions are made redundant only because of
titling a proceeding as Civil Suit.
14. So far as, another contention of the appellant that
'a decree is drawn by the learned District Judge-11,
Aurangabad' pursuant to the respective judgments and orders,
for the reasons stated above, such decree would not ipso facto
create/confer jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code for a First Appeal to be presented in this
Court.
15. Now on the last contention of the appellant seeking an
appellate remedy for re-assessment of the evidence and
valuation for the claimed compensation is concern, a
profitable reference can be made to a judgment and order
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter
of Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) Vs. Vinod and Others,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731.
fa-2404-2025+++
16. Briefly speaking, in the above case the claimants therein
have lodged their grievance in the concerned District Court
under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. A Writ Petition was
filed either under Article 226 or 227 in the High Court against
the judgment and order passed by the concerned District
Court under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. This was
obviously because Section 16(5) of the Act of 1885, statutorily
gives finality to the decision taken by the learned District
Judge under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. In the given
case, the order passed by the High Court was taken up before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court questioning correct assessment of
the compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while
disposing of the appeals pending before it observed that the
Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice
as well as the Government of India to determine whether a
statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against the
judgments and order passed by the District Courts in a dispute
under Section 16(3) and 16(4) of the Act of 1885. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court also opined that there is need for
uniformity in nomenclature of the case filed under Section
16(3) of the Act of 1885. For the sake of convenience,
fa-2404-2025+++
paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment in Kalpataru (supra) are
reproduced as follows:
33. Needless to add here that, in the process
of determination of compensation, evidence will
have to be led by the parties. Unless statutory
remedy of appeal is provided where all issues of
law and facts can be re-examined, any other
remedy may be illusionary. As is noticed in the
facts of the present case, the remedies availed by
different parties were different. In some of the
cases, writ petitions were filed by the
landowners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, impugning the judgment
and decree of the civil court and in some of the
cases, the contractor as well as the landowners
filed petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Reappreciation of evidence
in those proceedings may be an issue. Remedy
may not be effective and can become illusionary.
34. Not only this, but the anomalies as have
been referred to ain the paragraph 30 with
reference to various timelines as well, the matter
needs to be examined.
35. In the aforesaid background, we are of the
opinion that these issues need to be examined by
the Law Commission of India and the Ministry of
Law and Justice, Government of India, so as to
determine whether a statutory remedy of appeal
should be provided against judgments/orders
passed under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the
1885 Act, the Petroleum Act or any other similar
statute.
fa-2404-2025+++
36. Section 16(3) of 1885 Act, provides that
an application can be filed before the District
Judge in case of a dispute related to
compensation. In district Sonepat, such an
application was registered and numbered as a
Civil Suit where a judgment and decree has been
passed. Whereas in district Jhajjar, the same was
registered as a Civil Miscellaneous Application
and only judgment has been passed. There is
need to bring uniformity in the nomenclature to
be assigned to these kinds of proceedings, which
may come to the court under the 1885 Act and
also the proceedings under the Petroleum and
Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User
in Land) Act, 1962.
17. Thus, it is clear that although in a dispute under Section
16(3) or 16(4) of the Act of 1885, as the case might be styled
and titled in any nomenclature, the provision of Section 16(5)
shall prevail over such decision.
18. In view of above, I am of the considered view that this
Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code against any decision, may be in the form
of a judgment, judgment & order and a judgment & order with
a decree passed by the District Court exercising the
jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885.
19. It is quite clear from the judgment and order passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalpataru (supra),
fa-2404-2025+++
that the parties aggrieved by a decision rendered by District
Courts under Section 16(3) or 16(4) of the Act of 1885, have
taken recourse to Article 226 as also to Article 227 of the
Constitution of India in respective cases. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court at paragraph 27 of the said judgment has observed as
follows:
27. In the present case as well, some parties
invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, whereas
others filed petitions invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution. This is solely because no proper
appellate remedy has been provided. The only
scope of interference in exercise of extra-
ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court would be
within the parameters of judicial review.
20. In view of above, in the peculiar facts, this Court can
either reject the appeal as not maintainable in view of Section
16(5) of the Act of 1885, or the appeal can be returned to the
appellants under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure
Code for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The powers u/o
Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 are mutually
exclusive.
21. At this stage it would beneficial to quote what this
Court has observed in the case of "Roda Mehta case"
(Roda Jal Mehta & Others Versus Homi Framrose Mehta &
Others, reported in AIR 1989 Bombay 359 ) which is
fa-2404-2025+++
reproduced as follows:
"If I am not empowered to receive a plaint, I
cannot deal with such a plaint. If I am not
empowered to receive, I cannot keep it in the
records of this Court. I must necessarily return
the plaint to the person who has tendered such a
plaint. I cannot understand how on this basis I
can dismiss the plaint when I am not empowered
to receive the same."
22. In view of above, and considering that the poor farmers
who are appellants in the present proceedings, who due to
misconception of law have presented these First Appeals by
paying Court Fees, I deem it appropriate in the interest of
justice to return the appeals to the appellants under Order VII
Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Needless to mention
appellants may present the proceedings in proper form and
before proper forum in view of paragraph 19 of this order.
23. It is ordered accordingly on 25.09.2025 by intimation to
the appellant.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2025
