Kerala High Court
P.V. Ali Mubarak vs The Power Grid Corporation on 3 November, 2022
1
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1585 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 18/2014 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.V. ALI MUBARAK
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR ,PEEVEES
PLANTATION, THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFIE, NILAMBOOR
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-679330.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
CHEVARAMBALAM CALICUT PIN-673017.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGUALTORY
COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CAHIRMAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010
3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOADRD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 004.
BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.B PRAMOD - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1590, 1593, 1594, 1595 AND
1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1590 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 15/2013 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT -II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
P.V.ALI MUBARAK
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR , PEEVEES
PLANTATIONS, THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679330.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT-673017.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.
3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.B PRAMOD - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1593, 1594, 1595 AND
1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1593 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 12/2013 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
P.V.ALI MUBARAK
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR, PEEVEES PLANTATIONS,
THOLPETTY PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679330.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT, PIN-673017.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VELLAYAMBALAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695010.
3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.B PRAMOD - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1594, 1595 AND
1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1594 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 13/2013 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
P.V.ALI MUBARAK
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY,DIRECTOR, PEEVEES
PLANTATIONS,THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFICE,NILAMBOOR
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 679330.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER,CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT, PIN 673017.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695010.
3 THE KERALA STATE ELCTRICITY BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695004.
BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.B PRAMOD - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1593, 1595 AND
1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
5
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1595 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 14/2013 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
P.V.ALI MUBARAK
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR, PEEVEES
PLANTATIONS,THOLPETTY PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR
P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN:679330.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER,CHEVARAMBALAM CALICUT, PIN:673017.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695010.
3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTIRICY BOARD LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695004.
BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.B PRAMOD - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594 AND
1596 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
6
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 19/2013 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT - II, KALPETTA
PETITIONER/S:
P.VA.ALI MUBARAK
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, DIRECTOR,PEEVEES
PLANTATIONS, THOLPETTY, PEEVEES OFFICE, NILAMBOOR
P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 679 330.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY
SRI.M.I.JOHNSON
SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER,CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT, PIN 673 017.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 010.
3 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN,
PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 004.
BY ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.B PRAMOD - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.11.2022 ALONG WITH OP NOS.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594 AND
1595 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: P
7
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,1595
and 1596 of 2016
-----------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022.
COMMON JUDGMENT
As the original petitions are between the same
parties, they are being disposed of by the common
judgment.
2. The original petitions are filed to set aside the
orders passed in OP (Electricity) Nos.18/2014, 15/2013,
12/2013, 13/2013, 14/2013 and 19/2014 of the Court of
the Additional District Judge-II, Kalpetta (court below).
3. The common case of the petitioner, in brief,
relevant for the determination of the original petitions,
is: the petitioner is the Director of Peevees Plantations.
The plantations is the owner in possession of
properties comprised in various survey numbers in
Thirunelli Village in Mananthavadi Taluk, Wayanad
District. The first respondent is engaged in the
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
transmission of power. The second respondent is the
Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the
third respondent is the Kerala State Electricity Board.
The first respondent had, in the process of drawing a
400 KV Double circuit line, cut down considerable
number of valuable trees standing in the property of the
petitioner. As the respondents paid only a meagre
amount towards compensation, the petitioner filed the
above numbered original petitions before the court
below for enhancement of compensation. The first
respondent resisted the original petitions, inter alia,
contending that the court below has no inherent
jurisdiction. The court below, by the impugned Ext P1
order passed in all the above original petitions,
dismissed the original petitions holding that it has no
jurisdiction, but reserved the liberty of the petitioner to
approach the second respondent. Pursuant to Ext P1
order, the petitioner presented petitions before the
second respondent, who declined to even accept the
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
petitions on file on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction. The petitioner is left remediless. Ext P1
orders passed by the court below are erroneous and
wrong. Hence, the original petitions.
4. Heard; Sri.M.I Johnson, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in all the original petitions,
Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for
the first respondent - Corporation and Sri.B.Pramod,
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third
respondent.
5. The question is whether there is any illegality
in Ext P1 orders.
6. The court below, by the impugned Ext P1
order, has held that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
the original petition after the coming into force of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
7. Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 reads
as follows:
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
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, 1860 (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, or as to the proportions in which
the persons interested are 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
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
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
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.
8. A reading of sub-section (3) of Sec.16 of the
above Act, unambiguously establishes that in case of
any dispute regarding the sufficiency of compensation,
the disputing party has to approach the District Judge,
within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, and
the District Judge is to determine the dispute.
9. In the light of the aforequoted provision, it is
the court below who is competent to decide the
dispute between the telegraph authority and the
affected party.
10. The above position is no longer res integra in
view of the categoric declaration of law by the Hon'ble
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India
Ltd vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. [2017
KHC 2723] . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in
paragraph 26 and 27 held as follows:
26) These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil AppealNo.
10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside
those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that if
the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation,
the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the
concerned District Judge for this purpose. It would also be apt
to point out at this stage that the Central Government has
framed guidelines dated October 15, 2015 in this behalf which
inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be
resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment
of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would
always be open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per
the said guidelines.
27) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8951 OF 2011 - This appeal is filed
by Power Grid in the case of Ram Naresh Singh. In this case,
transmission lines are in District Sasaram in the State of Bihar.
The complete work for laying down the transmission lines
where 524 overhead towers have been erected by the Power
Grid. Out of these, only 1 tower is located at the land belonging
to Ram Naresh Singh. The dispute raised is with regard to
quantum of compensation and as per the provisions of Section
16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is to be settled by the
District Judge. Thus, for all the reasons given above in the case
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
of Century Textiles & Industries Limited, this appeal of the
Power Grid stands allowed and the judgment of the High Court
is set aside.
11. A similar view has been taken by this Court in
Joseph V.J vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd
and others [2017 KHC 2718] and Jayaram and
others v. Kerala State Electricity Board,
Thiruvananthapuram [2015 (3) KHC 453].
12. In the light of the clear enunciation of law
under Sec.16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and its
interpretation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court in the aforecited decisions and a recent decision
of this Court in OP (C) No.1229/2020, I am of the
definite view that the conclusion arrived at by the court
below in Ext P1 orders in all the cases is erroneous and
unsustainable in law. As the court below has declined
its jurisdiction on an erroneous finding of inherent
jurisdiction, I am inclined to allow the original petition,
invoking the power of superintendence of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
In the result, I allow the original petitions in the
following manner:
(i) Ext P1 orders in OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593,
1594,1595 and 1596 of 2016 are set aside.
(ii) OP (Electricity) Nos.18/2014, 15/2013, 12/2013,
13/2013, 14/2013 and 19/2014 are restored to file.
(iii) The Court of the Additional District Judge-II,
Kalpetta, is directed to consider and dispose of the
OP (Electricity) Nos.18/2014, 15/2013, 12/2013,
13/2013, 14/2013 and 19/2014, in accordance with
law.
(iv) On a consideration of the fact that the original
petitions are of the year 2013 onwards, the court
below shall make every endeavour to consider and
dispose of the cases, as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, on or before 10.4.2023.
sd/-
sks/3.11.2022 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1585/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT
JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL
PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.18/2014.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON
19.05.2005.
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1590/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
9.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT
JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL
PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.15/2013.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON
19.05.2005.
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1593/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
8.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT
JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL
PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.12/2013.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON
19.05.2005.
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1594/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
9.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDLE DISTRICT
JUDGE KALPATTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL
PETITION (ELELCTRICITY) NO.13/2013
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON
19.05.2005.
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1595/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21.1.2015 OF THE HON'BLE ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE KALPETTA, WAYNAD IN ORIGINAL
PETITION (ELECTRICITY) NO.14/2013.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON
19.5.2005.
OP(C) Nos.1585, 1590, 1593, 1594,
1595 and 1596 of 2016
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1596/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.1.15 OF
THE HONOURABLE ADDITIOANL DISTRICT JUDGE
KALPETTA, WAYANAD, IN ORIGINAL PETITION
[ELECTRICITY] NO.19/2014.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM ON
19.5.05.
