Sri Tinkhuma Darlong vs The Junior Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 204 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 6


                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A
                        CRP. No. 03 of 2019

      1.     Sri Tinkhuma Darlong, son of late Suroia Darlong,
      2.     Sri Thanga Darlong @ C. Thanga Darlong, son of late
             Zathanga Darlong,
      3.     Sri Biaka Darlong, son of late Zathanga Darlong,
      4.     Sri Hringbula Darlong, son of late Shona Darlong,
      5.     Smt. Khami Darlong @ Khuasmi Darlong, daughter of
             late Jhona Darlong, wife of Minga Darlong.
             All residents of Village: Sailapi, P.S. Kailashahar, District:
             Unakoti, Tripura.

                                                           .....Petitioners

                               -V E R S U S-

      1.     The Junior Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India
             Limited, Kumarghat, Village-Ratiabari, P.O. & P.S.
             Kumarghat, District: Unakoti, Tripura.

      2.     The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, represented
             by the Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India
             Limited, 132 K.V. Line, Kumarghat Sub-Station, At
             Village- Ratiabari, P.O. & P.S. Kumarghat, District:
             Unakoti, Tripura, PIN-799264.
                                                        ..... Respondents

B_E_F_O_R_E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)         :       Mr. R. K. P. Singh, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment and order     :       21.02.2022
Whether fit for reporting :       NO



                      JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]

Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. K. P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] This petition has been filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 in case No. Civil Misc (Telegraph) 01 of 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar.

[3] The case of the petitioners, in brief, are that the petitioners filed their application under Section-16(3) read with Section-10 proviso (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act with their prayer for passing order for payment of appropriate and adequate enhanced compensation and damages with interest.

[4] Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that in their respective lands as described in the schedule of the petition, they planted various valuable trees and their generated income through these fruit bearing trees were the source for maintaining their livelihood. The respondents had drawn 400 K.V. D/C Silchar Purba Kanchanbari Transmission Line over the lands of the petitioners during the year 2013-2014 causing damage of trees described in their schedule of the petition and thereby by claimed their respective amount as per notification dated 22.09.1999 of the Government of Tripura.

[5] According to the petitioners, the respondents paid only Rs.6,96,737/- in total to the petitioners which though inadequate, but the cheques of the said amount were accepted by the illiterate, rustic tribal

petitioners under protest signing on the printed format of the respondents without knowing its contents.

[6] It has also been submitted by Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel that the petitioners due to bona fide mistake they filed a civil suit bearing No. MS 8 of 2014 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kailashahar on 08.08.2014 on the said subject matter and the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.12.2016 for want of jurisdiction and the decree was signed on 12.01.2017 and thus, the petitioners were entitled to exemption from limitation of the entire period spent in that suit under Section-14 of the Limitation Act read with Order-VII Rule-6 of CPC.

[7] However, after receipt of the summons the respondents filed their written objection jointly stating that the respondent-Power Grid is authorized under the Indian Telegraph Act and Electricity Act for placing electric line for transmission for electricity but, as no land was acquired for the purpose, the petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation for the price of the land. It has been further stated that the petitioners are only liable to pay compensation for damage of the cost of property under Section10(b) of the India Telegraph Act and up to that extent they made compensation to the petitioners for damage of crops and tress by serving notice to the land owners and the petitioners also received the full compensation for their damage by cheques on different dates for an amount and those amounts were received by the petitioners without any objection and with their full satisfaction.

[8] After framing of issues for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, the claimant-petitioners adduced their evidence and submitted documentary evidence in support of their claim. Thereafter hearing both sides, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment

and order dated 29th August, 2018 in case No. Civil Misc (Telegraph) 01 of 2017 without any enhancement of compensation.

[9] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

[10] Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the learned Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law. He has submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the fact that in the money receipt cum undertakings there were clear mention of compensation being paid towards crops, trees, foundation, erection, stringing but, inadequacy of the same was totally over looked by the trial court.

[11] Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further contended that the court below did not consider that laying of high tension electric line actually renders the underneath land of the tower and power line to be useless since the proximity of the tower and underneath the power line, at-least 3 to 4 meter wide foot paths need to be laid and kept free at all time for laying the line and towers along with movement of heavy machineries and along with that for periodic servicing the lines the aforesaid stretch is used perpetually. As such, through technically no land was acquired, but in-fact the lands of the petitioners were rendered useless and there is no future prospects of the same.

[12] The claim of the petitioners were not considered by the respondents as well as by the learned trial court since no amount had been given for the diminution of land value caused by the drawing of electric lines for the reasons as mentioned above. The annual return of the fruits

bearing trees were not considered by the court below while passing the impugned judgment.

[13] Further, Mr. Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has averred that the petitioners grievances were that no amount of compensation was paid for diminished value of land and that the compensation paid for the trees cut was abysmally low. The petitioners have also a case that the compensation for yield was not properly reckoned.

[14] He has submitted that the law is trite that an award is against fundamental policy of Indian law when it is not in compliance with stature or judicial precedents or it violates the principles of judicial approach or is not in compliance with principles of natural justice or violates principles of Wednesbury reasonableness.

[15] Having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in brief, the observations made by the court below also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and on consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that, justice would be met if the matter is remand back to the appropriate authority setting aside the orders passed by the learned District Judge for afresh adjudication. Accordingly.

[16] In view of the same, for the damages they have suffered, detail claims statements have been filed before the court below under several acts. In this regard, the learned District Judge has referred to the Exhibits-28 to 32 and has disposed of all the claim applications saying that the amounts which the claimants have received, is just and proper and needs no enhancement.

[17] It is seen from the records that the amounts have been paid and the same have been received by the respective claimants. Though there is no match for claims and the amounts receipts, this Court feels that the order passed by the concerned District Judge is unreasoned. The claims have been made under

different headings and this Court is surprised as no speaking order has been passed to meet the contentions of the petitioners.

[18] Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the same and accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order passed by the learned District Judge in case No. Civil Misc (Telegraph) 01 of 2017 dated 29.08.2018, remand back the same for passing a speaking/reasoned order within three months.

JUDGE

A.Ghosh