Madras High Court
The District Collector vs K.Natarajan on 4 August, 2021
W.A.No.325 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.No.325 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.1322 of 2021
The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District,
Dharmapuri. .. Appellant
Vs
1.K.Natarajan
2.Powergrid NM Transmission Ltd.,
Rep. by General Manager,
No.62, 3rd Cross,
MEI Road, Industrial Suburb,
Yeswantpur,
Bengaluru - 560 022. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 12.04.2019 made in W.P.No.16460 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.D.Ravichander,
Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sanjeevi for R1
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Sr.Counsel
for Mr.Kalyanaraman
M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for R2
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal raises two interesting legal issues. For deciding the
said issues, primary background facts are to be reiterated.
2. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. The
second respondent undertook the project which goes through the State
of Tamil Nadu. The project extends from Nagapattinam - New Salem
(Dharmapuri) in the State of Tamil Nadu and thereafter goes to the
State of Karnataka. While implementing the project, lines were drawn
through the property of the first respondent. In the year 2016,
compensation was given to the first respondent partially which is only
for the building. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.7,17,907/- was paid towards
the value of the building by rejecting the larger compensation sought
for by the first respondent which is inclusive of right of way.
3. The first respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No.7685 of 2016
against the order of the appellant/the District Collector, Dharmapuri
dated 31.12.2015. The following is the relevant portion of the order
passed:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
"8. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit,
justifying their action, which need not be gone into at this
stage, since already the work towards the erection of
transmission tower is in progress. All that has to be seen is
as to the stand taken by the second respondent is with
regard to the effect of the guidelines issued by the
Government of India, dated 15.10.2015. To find this aspect,
it would be suffice to refer to para Nos.14 and 15 of the
counter affidavit, wherein, the second respondent has
accepted that they would pay the compensation in terms of
the guidelines on determination of the same by the District
Magistrate/District Collector, however, they seek to restrict
only to para 2 (i) of the said guidelines. While the second
respondent accepts that they are bound by the abovesaid
guidelines, they cannot restrict it by stating that the claim
should be made by the petitioner only in terms of para 2 (i)
of the guidelines. The petitioner, being the land owner, it is
well open to him to invoke all provisions, which according to
him, are applicable to the land in question and make a claim
for compensation before the District Collector/first
respondent.
9. Further, it has to be pointed out that, so far as
the award of compensation mentioned in the impugned
order, the District Collector in the penultimate para, has
made vague observation, stating that the petitioner is
entitled to proper compensation. Therefore, to that extent,
the order passed by the District Collector is held to be not
tenable, as it is inconsistent with regard to the manner in
which the compensation has to be determined as per the
guidelines framed by the Government of India. Accordingly,
while upholding the order passed by the District Collector to
the aforesaid extent, there will be a direction to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
petitioner to submit his claim statement before the first
respondent/District Collector, in accordance with the
guidelines framed by the Government of India, dated
15.10.2015, along with a copy of this order, clearly setting
out as to what is the basis of his claim, and the petitioner is
entitled to invoke all the clauses under the guidelines. On
receipt of such claim statement, the first respondent shall
issue notice to the second respondent, and after affording an
opportunity to file their reply/counter, and thereafter, shall
issue notice to the petitioner and the second respondent,
fixing a date for hearing the parties in person, direct the
second respondent to produce all documents, including the
building valuation report, and after perusing all the
documents, hear the parties in full, and pass a reasoned
order, by strictly adhering to the guidelines prescribed by the
Government of India. The first respondent is directed to
give the second respondent, three weeks' time to file
reply/counter, and after receipt of the claim statement from
the petitioner and after reply/counter affidavit is received
from the second respondent, after serving a copy of the
same to the petitioner in advance, the first respondent shall
fix a date of hearing within a period of 10 days thereafter,
and after hearing all the parties in full, shall pass appropriate
orders within two months from the date on which hearing is
concluded."
4. In compliance of the order aforesaid which has become final
inter se parties, the first respondent sent his claim statement dated
06.06.2016. The impugned order was passed thereafter rejecting the
request of the first respondent on two grounds, namely, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
Government Order passed in G.O.(Ms).No.63 Energy (A1) Department,
dated 22.11.2017 being prospective in nature does not facilitate the
consideration of the compensation for the right of way and the project
having been introduced by Gazette Publication issued by the Central
Government dated 05.12.2013 with the guidelines issued by the
Ministry of Power providing for damages for the right of way having
come into force on 15.10.2015 being prospective, the request made
was not feasible of consideration.
5. The first respondent once again put to challenge the order of
rejection passed by the appellant. Taking into consideration the earlier
order passed in W.P.No.7685 of 2016, the learned Single Judge was
pleased to set aside the order impugned with the direction to the other
respondents to pay the compensation in tune with the guideline issued
by the Ministry of Power, Government of India dated 15.10.2015,
without going into the applicability of the Government Order in
G.O.(Ms).No.63 Energy (A1) Department, dated 22.11.2017.
Strangely, this order has been put to challenge before us by the
appellant, who is the statutory authority under Section 10 read with
Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Perhaps, the
contesting respondent has not appealed against the order passed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
the learned Single Judge since the statement made by the learned
Senior Counsel on behalf of the second respondent that the larger
issue on the applicability of the Government Order may be left open
vis-a-vis the guideline of the Central Government dated 15.10.2015 to
be decided in the appropriate case and, therefore, the decision shall
not be quoted as a precedent. However, we find that the learned Single
Judge though took note of the aforesaid submission, did not make any
observation, though the order was passed to consider the claim of the
first respondent on the basis of the guideline of the Central
Government dated 15.10.2015, ignoring the Government Order passed
in G.O.(Ms).No.63 Energy (A1) Department, dated 22.11.2017.
6. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the appellant
reiterated the two grounds indicated in the order of rejection, namely,
(i) the project was earlier in point of time to the guidelines of the
Central Government dated 15.10.2015 being initiated in the year 2013
and (ii) the applicability of the Government Order, being prospective
and having been issued on 22.11.2017.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent
submitted that the order passed on the first occasion in W.P.No.7685 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
2016 has to be seen contextually and the remedy open to the first
respondent is by way of filing a suit. In support of his contention,
reliance has been made on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Powergrid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and
Industries Limited and Others ((2017) 5 SCC 143).
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that the Government Order dated 22.11.2017 can only be
applied to the State Government projects per se and not to the Inter-
State projects. The said order is only an adoption of the guidelines of
the Central Government and that too on the basis of the report
submitted by the Chairman, TANTRANSCO. The guidelines are
prospective in nature and, therefore, to be applied to such of those
cases where the compensation has not been determined after it has
come into being. To say, the guidelines are not to be applied to the
project initiated earlier cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal will have to be dismissed.
9. Prima facie, we have our own doubt on the maintainability of
this appeal. We have already indicated the role required to be played
by the appellant either under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1855 or under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
the Electricity Act, 2003. The second respondent, who has to pay the
compensation and complete the project was satisfied with the order of
the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, even on merit, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
second respondent submitted that the said issue of application of the
Government Order may be left open, we are constrained to give a
finding since the appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the
aforesaid finding. It is the case of the appellant that the issue of
compensation cannot be adjudicated upon and, therefore, we have no
other choice except to decide this issue.
10. We have perused the Government Order passed. The said
order merely adopts the decision taken by the Central Government.
Obviously, the State Government does not require to give any
compensation for the project initiated by the second respondent. The
State Government order also was passed on a report submitted by the
statutory body functioning under its authority. Therefore, there is no
difficulty in holding that the said Government order has got no
application. This finding we are constrained to render in view of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
contentions raised by the learned Government Counsel appearing for
the appellant.
11. Coming to the other issue, here again, a strange reasoning
has been adopted by the appellant in passing the impugned order. The
entire case looks strange since at least the second respondent has
understood his own case. That is the reason why, a fair submission has
been made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second
respondent even before the learned Single Judge on the second
occasion. Admittedly, on the date when the compensation was paid
partially for the building, the guidelines of the Central Government
dated 15.10.2015 was in vogue. Initiating a project has got nothing to
do with the owner of the land. The question of compensation has to be
decided based upon the law governing on that date unless a clear
indication is given. Now, we are only concerned with the application of
the guidelines. Certainly, the guidelines are prospective and, therefore,
they should be applied for such of those cases seeking adjudication on
the question of compensation. The appellant is the authority
competent to decide the issue of compensation. Hence, the second
contention based upon which the impugned order was passed is also
rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent
made reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Power Grid's
case. The facts governing the present case and those involved in the
said case decided are different. In any case, the second respondent
has not challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it
is not open to the second respondent to contend to the contrary. Even
otherwise, we find that Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act only
deals with the issue of sufficiency of compensation. What we are
dealing with is the issue of entitlement of compensation. Perhaps, in
the event of the appellant deciding the compensation which is not
acceptable to the first respondent, then the remedy open to him is to
approach the District Collector in tune with the order of the Apex Court
referred supra but not at this stage.
13. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Single
Judge.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. The appellant
shall give effect to the order of the learned Single Judge within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (S.K., J.)
04.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
The General Manager,
Powergrid NM Transmission Ltd.,
No.62, 3rd Cross,
MEI Road, Industrial Suburb,
Yeswantpur,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.325 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
mmi
W.A.No.325 of 2021
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
