M/S Power Grid Corpn. Of India Ltd vs On The Death Of Abdul Khalique
2023 Latest Caselaw 2539 Gua

                                                           Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010123232023




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/3450/2023

         M/S POWER GRID CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.
         A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE,
         HAVING ITS SUB-STATION AT SILCHAR
         IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
         AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGHNATORY
         SHRI S. RAMAMOHANA CHARY,
         SON OF LATE S. RANGA CHARYA,
         RESIDENT OF 132 KV POWERGRID SUB STATION,
         BADARPUR GHAT, BADARPUR- 788803,
         DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         ON THE DEATH OF ABDUL KHALIQUE
         HIS LEGAL HEIRS

         1.1:NIJAMUDDIN LASKAR
          S/O LATE ABDUL KHALIQUE LASKAR

         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KILLARBAKH

         P.O.- JAMARIA
          P.S.- RAMNATHPUR

         IN THE DISTRICT OF HAILAKANDI

         ASSAM.

         1.2:MD. ROFIKUDDIN LASKAR
          S/O LATE ABDUL KHALIQUE LASKAR

         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KILLARBAKH
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/3


             P.O.- JAMARIA
              P.S.- RAMNATHPUR

             IN THE DISTRICT OF HAILAKANDI

             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR G N SAHEWALLA

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                              ORDER

16.06.2023

Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging a judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Misc. Case no. 86/2006 whereby the learned District Judge, Hailakandi directed the opposite party no. 1 therein i.e. the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs. 38,56,500/- towards compensation to the petitioner therein i.e. the sole respondent herein.

It is submitted that the petitioner is a transmission utility and a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. In the course of its business as such licensee, the petitioner undertook construction of a transmission line of 132 KV power line from Badarpur, Assam to Bhairabi, Mizoram over the Hailakandi district. The said project was undertaken in the year 1990s and the sole respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 5,179/- towards surface damage compensation as per the Government approved rate on 10.03.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that after elapse of 7 [seven] years, the sole respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in 2006 under Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 and Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910 claiming enhanced compensation raising a dispute purportedly. Litigation ensued where the petitioner herein took a stand that the dispute Page No.# 3/3

raised by the sole respondent before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi under Section 16[3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is barred by limitation. But, the issue of limitation has not been considered by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi while deciding Misc. Case no. 86/2006 as well as Misc.[P.G.] Case no. 86/2006 by the judgments, dated 03.12.2011 and dated 21.09.2022 respectively. The issue raised by the petitioner requires deliberation.

Issue notice, returnable in 4 [four] weeks.

The petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 1.1 and the respondent no. 1.2 by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process within 2 [two] working days from today.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any dispute raised under Section 16[3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the jurisdictional District Judge, the period of limitation provided by Section 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and in such view of the matter, the dispute raised by the sole respondent herein was clearly barred by limitation. It is further submitted that as per Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the point of limitation can be raised at any time.

Having considered the aspects urged on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case. It is, therefore, provided that till the returnable date, the operation of the judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed in Misc.[P.G.] Case no. 86/2006 shall remained stayed.

List the case after 4 [four] weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant