Samir Ghosal vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7 Cal

January 04, 2022
   ARDR

          (6)
                                    WPA 10320 of 2021

                                       Samir Ghosal
                                             Vs.
                                    Union of India & Ors.

                   Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain,
                   Mr. Himadri Kumar Mahata,
                   Ms. Priyanka Mondal,
                                                            ...for the petitioner.
                   Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi,
                   Mr. Uttam Kumar Mandal,
                                       ...for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Ms. Anamika Pandey, Ms. Amrita Pandey, ...for the UOI.

Exception filed by the petitioner against the

report filed on behalf of respondent Power Grid

Corporation of India Limited is taken on record.

The contention of the petitioner is that the plots

of land owned by the petitioner were used by the

answering respondent the Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited for construction of Jirat-Medinipur

transmission line through the property. The

respondent paid an amount of Rs.95,772/- to the

petitioner by way of damage to the crops lying on the

fields/property which were utilised for the project. The

petitioner complains that the said work has

permanently damaged the crops in plot nos. 751 and

1674 and an amount of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.48,000/-

was granted by the respondent to the petitioner for the

damage caused in plot nos. 751 and 1674 respectively.

But no compensation has been granted by the

respondent to the petitioner for permanent damage

caused to the land. The petitioner has referred to the

recommendation for guidelines for payment of

compensation towards damages in regard to the right

of way for transmission lines issued by the Joint

Secretary (Transmission) to the Chief Secretaries/all

the States and Union Territories and other authorities

on 15th October, 2015. The recommendation says that

the compensation towards diminution of land value

should be decided by the States subject to a maximum

of fifteen per cent of the land value as determined

based on Circle rate/Guideline value/Stamp Act rates.

The petitioner prays for compensation in terms of the

said recommendation with regard to the plots of land

used by the respondent.

The respondent the Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited submits that the Corporation acquired

right of user over the petitioner's land in terms of

Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and

the petitioner has been paid a total sum of

Rs.95,772/- towards damages for the installation work

carried on over the petitioner's land. Learned counsel

for the respondent submits that in the event the

petitioner is aggrieved by the assessment of such

compensation, he is at liberty to approach the

appropriate forum under Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act.

It is not in dispute that the installation work

over the petitioner's land has been completed and the

petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.95,772/-

towards damages for the same. The recommendation

dated 15th October, 2015, referred to by the petitioner,

indicates that it is only a recommendation issued for

consideration of the States and Union Territories and it

is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the

State of West Bengal has not accepted the said

recommendation. As such, the recommendation has

no statutory force at present.

It is clearly envisaged in Section 10(d) of the Act

of 1885 that in exercise of powers to install telegraph

line or posts over any land, the authority should do as

little damage as possible and pay full compensation to

all persons interested for any damage sustained by

them by reason of such installation. The authority has

paid compensation to the petitioner in terms of the

said provision of law.

The petitioner has heavily relied upon the

recommendation dated 15th October, 2015 in

submitting that besides damages paid to him by the

authority, he is also entitled to compensation at the

rate of fifteen per cent of the market value of the land.

But such recommendation not being accepted by the

State, the respondent has no liability to abide by the

same. In terms of the provisions laid down under

Section 10(d) of the 1885 Act with regard to payment

of compensation for any damage sustained,

compensation has admittedly been paid to the

petitioner by the Power Grid Corporation of India

Limited.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed

reliance on a judgment in Power Grid Corporation of

India Limited vs. Century Textiles and Industries

Limited and ors. reported in (2017) 5 Supreme

Court Cases 143 passed on December 14, 2016. The

said judgment demonstrates that in view of Section

164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Telegraph

Authority/ Power Grid is not under obligation to obtain

prior consent from or issue prior notice upon the

owners of the land and has been empowered to lay

telegraph lines through the land belonging to the

owners on payment of compensation for damages

caused therein on account of such work. However, in

the case in hand, the petitioner has not alleged non-

service of prior notice upon him.

The petitioner is primarily aggrieved with the

compensation paid by the respondent and contends

that the amount has been paid for damages done to

the crops on the land and not for permanent damage

caused to the land itself. I am afraid Section 10(d) of

the 1885 Act does not distinguish between payment of

compensation for the land and damages caused to the

land and the compensation payable in terms of said

provision of law is "for any damage sustained".

Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act is relevant. Section

16(3) says that in case of any dispute arising

concerning sufficiency of the compensation to be paid

under Section 10(d), either party to the dispute can

approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction

the property is situate, for determination of such

compensation. In view of the same, the petitioner is at

liberty to approach the District Judge within whose

jurisdiction the property is situate, for assessment of

compensation if he is aggrieved by the amount of

compensation paid to him or the determination of such

compensation.

As the respondent has assessed the

compensation in terms of Section 10(d) of the Act of

1885, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the

appropriate forum and this Court, in exercise of extra

ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, cannot intervene in such

assessment of compensation, there being alternative,

efficacious remedy available to the petitioner before the

appropriate court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of

any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, WPA 10320 of 2021 is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if

applied for, be furnished to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)