Madras High Court
The Power Grid Corporation vs N.Baskar on 18 August, 2021
W.A.No.380 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.No.380 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.6303 of 2020
1.The Power Grid Corporation
of India Limited,
(A Govt. of India Enterprise),
B-9, Qutab Institutional Area,
Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi.
2.Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited,
Regional Office,
SR-II, 33, Race Course Road,
Bangalore.
3.The Chief Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited,
400 KV Sub Station, Pennalur,
Sriperumbudur – 602 105. .. Appellants
Vs.
1.N.Baskar
2.The District Magistrate-cum-
District Collector,
Kanchipuram District,
Kanchipuram. .. Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 13.08.2019 made in W.P.No.13445 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel
Mr.Kalyanaraman
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
For Respondents : Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian
Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Kasirajan for R1
Mr.D.Ravichander
Government Counsel for R2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
order of the learned Single Judge, who while setting aside the order
dated 26.05.2010 passed by the third respondent on the premise that
in the absence of any damage to the trees, crops, building or
permanent structure in the land, the other questions pertaining to
damages cannot be decided under Section 10d of the Indian Telegraph
Act,1855 (for short 'the Act').
2. The learned Single Judge while setting aside the order
impugned remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the third
appellant for fixing the compensation for dilution of the value of the
land caused due to the overhead lines.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that Section 10d which comes under part III of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 does not deal with either damage or compensation
to the property per se except those involving trees, crops or
permanent structure, as the case may be. On facts, it is submitted that
even otherwise there is no damage. Therefore, the only remedy open
to the first respondent/writ petitioner is to invoke Section 16(3) of the
Act or by way of filing a suit before the District Court. 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) with specific reference to the
following paragraphs:-
23. We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting
the argument of the writ Petitioner that the
impugned action of the Power Grid was contrary to
the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
24. We also do not find that the action of the
Power Grid, in the given circumstances, by not
shifting the transmission lines was arbitrary. From
the facts noted above, it becomes apparent that
not only it was unfeasible to change the alignment
as almost entire work had already been completed
by the time the writ Petitioner started protesting
against this move, even otherwise, the Power Grid
has given sufficient explanation to point out that
all relevant factors/aspects were kept in mind
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
while laying down the impugned transmission
lines. Such transmission lines had to be in straight
line to the extent possible for eliminating loss of
transmission. It is also explained that electricity
transmission is usually laid or crossed over
agricultural land where minimum extent of land
gets utilised for erecting towers and where
agricultural activities are not
prejudiced/obstructed in any manner. The purpose
is to avoid buildings, religious places, ponds etc.
while laying down these transmission lines, it is
only when it becomes inevitable that towers are
placed on the private lines to the minimum and
least extent possible. That is what was tried to
achieve in the instant case. Another important
factor, which needs repetition at this stage is that
no blasting is permissible within 300 mts. from the
400KV line (already existing) or the tower
structure. Mining of limestone can be taken up by
adopting the methods other than use of
explosive/blasting-without damage to the tower
foundation/tower structure or the line, which can
be accomplished by using jack hammer/pneumatic
hammer with compressor so as to avoid any
damage to the line or tower. This aspect has also
been taken note of by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court in the judgment dated March 11,
2008. The Division Bench did not differ with any of
these findings.
Accordingly, Civil Appeal No. 10953 of 2016
preferred by the writ Petitioner stands dismissed.
25. At this stage, we deal with the direction
of the Division Bench regarding compensation
payable to the writ Petitioner, or for that matter to
the State Government. In the first instance, no
such claim was laid by the writ Petitioner in the
writ petition or by the State Government before
the High Court. Furthermore, the High Court could
not have given this task to the District Collector,
which is contrary to the provisions of Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
16(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which are
extended to laying down of electricity lines. As per
this provision, such an authority vests with the
District Judge.
26. These are sufficient reasons to allow
Civil Appeal No. 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.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ
petitioner submitted that what is not available under Section 10d of
the Act cannot be introduced while interpreting the statutory provision.
The aforesaid section only speaks of the property and, therefore, the
damage has to be recovered to the property and not meant to be
restricted to a standing crop, tree or permanent structure. The learned
Senior Counsel lays emphasis on the word “any property” and “any
damage”. Therefore, even assuming Section 16(3) of the Act is
applicable, which may not be to the case on hand since the sufficiency
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
has not been dealt with, there is nothing in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Incidentally, it is submitted that inasmuch as the
ultimate decision lies with the District Court, the law governing will
have to be clarified so that the first respondent/writ petitioner will have
an opportunity to get the adequate compensation without going into
the question of entitlement.
5. We are concerned with the interpretation of two provisions,
namely, Section 10(d) and 16(3). Section 10(d) comes under Part III
of the Indian Telegraph Act, which deals with the power of the
Telegraphic Authority to place telegraphic line and posts. As rightly
submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first
respondent/writ petitioner, Section 10(d) imposes a responsibility on
the telegraph authority to make sure that any property which it deals
with is put into a little damage as possible while exercising its power.
Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has widened the scope to
include “any property” and, therefore, “any damage”. As the provision
is couched with a wider connotation, restrictive meaning is contrary to
the object and rationale leading to its interpretation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
6. Section 10(d) has to be read in conjunction with Section
16(3). Section 16(3) speaks of “any dispute”. Therefore, one has to
concern with the disputes between the owner and the telegraphic
authority. We cannot define the dispute in a restrictive way. Such
definition is not meant to be introduced under Section 16(3) and that
is the reason why it clearly says that any dispute between the parties
while exercising the power by the telegraphic authority under Section
10(d). Therefore, Section 10(d) imposes an element of responsibility
to the telegraphic authority asking it to exercise caution and restraint
with respect to a possible damage to any property, any dispute in the
exercise of such a power would be amenable to Section 16(3). The
word 'sufficiency of compensation' has also to be given a wider
interpretation. When we speak about the sufficiency of compensation
it will also include the case of no-compensation as well. Otherwise not
only Section 10(d) but Section 16 would become redundant and otiose.
There is no difficulty in understanding the aforesaid provision in
Section 16(3), which confers the power on the District Court to
adjudicate upon any dispute between the telegraphic authority on the
one hand and the owner on the other hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to permit the first
respondent/writ petitioner to approach the District Court within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment by invoking Section 16(3) by making an application. On such
application, we expect the jurisdictional District Court to decide all the
issues on the question of sufficiency of the compensation provided the
writ petitioner would be able to show the damage.
8. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
9. In view of the limited scope involved, we expect the
jurisdictional District Court to dispose of the application to be filed by
the first respondent/writ petitioner within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of such application.
(M.M.S., J.) (S.K., J.)
18.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
The District Magistrate-cum-
District Collector,
Kanchipuram District, Kanchipuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.380 of 2020
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
mmi
W.A.No.380 of 2020
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
