Chandrakant Pandharinath Solunke v. Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.

1fa-2404-2025+++IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 2404 OF 2025Chandrakant Pandharinath SolunkeAPPELLANT(Original Plaintiff)VERSUSPower Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,RESPONDENT(Original Defendant)ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2405 OF 2025Bappasaheb Pandurang Salunke.APPELLANT(Original Plaintiff)VERSUSPower Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,RESPONDENT(Original Defendant)ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2025Vishnu Tukaram Salunke, APPELLANT(Original Plaintiff)VERSUSPower Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,RESPONDENT(Original Defendant)AND 2fa-2404-2025+++FIRST APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2025Bebibai Vishnu SalunkeAPPELLANT(Original Plaintiff)VERSUSPower Grid Corporation Of India Ltd.,RESPONDENT(Original Defendant)______________________________________________________Mr. K. D. Jadhav, Advocate for Appellant in respective FAMr. Girish Rane, Advocate for Respondents in respective FA______________________________________________________CORAM :AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.RESERVED ON:16TH SEPTEMBER, 2025PRONOUNCED ON:25TH SEPTEMBER,2025ORDER :- 1.All these First Appeals have been filed by the respectiveappellants therein, thereby challenging judgment and decreepassed by the learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad in theirrespective proceedings titled as Civil Suit, and having beeninstituted under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1885’).2.The Registry of this Court has endorsed an objection inall these proceedings as ‘First Appeals not maintainable’ inview of Section 16(3) and 16(5) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. Hence, the appellants have moved these appeals beforeme. 3fa-2404-2025+++FIRST APPEAL NO. 2404 OF 2025:(Presented on 13.08.2025)a.Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss tohis agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due tothe act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 ofthe Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the presentrespondent before the learned District Judge-11 atAurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. Theseproceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.11 of 2019. Aftergoing through the evidence and hearing the concernedparties, the learned District Judge-11, exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed ajudgment and order dated 21.02.2025, thereby directing therespondent/corporation to pay Rs.2,232/- together with 6percent interest per annum, to the plaintiff/appellant. Pertinent to note that the learned District Judge-11,Aurangabad also drew a decree on 21.02.2025, pursuant tothe judgment and order.b.Against the judgment and decree, present appellant haspreferred this appeal. 4fa-2404-2025+++FIRST APPEAL NO. 2405 OF 2025(Presented on 13.08.2025)a.Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss tohis agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due tothe act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 ofthe Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the presentrespondent before the learned District Judge-11 atAurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. Theseproceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.10 of 2019. Aftergoing through the evidence and hearing the concernedparties, the learned District Judge-11, exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed ajudgment and order dated 21.02.2025, thereby directing therespondent/corporation to pay Rs.2,232/- together with 6percent interest per annum, to the plaintiff/appellant. Pertinent to note that the learned District Judge-11,Aurangabad also drew a decree on 21.02.2025, pursuant tothe judgment and order.b.Against the judgment and decree, present appellant haspreferred this appeal. 5fa-2404-2025+++FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 OF 2025(Presented on 13.08.2025)a.Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss tohis agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due tothe act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 ofthe Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the presentrespondent before the learned District Judge-11 atAurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. Theseproceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.8 of 2019. After goingthrough the evidence and hearing the concerned parties, thelearned District Judge-11, exercising its jurisdiction underSection 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed a judgment and orderdated 21.02.2025, thereby directing the respondent/corporation to pay Rs.2,232/- together with 6 percent interestper annum, to the plaintiff/appellant. Pertinent to note thatthe learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad also drew a decreeon 21.02.2025, pursuant to the judgment and order.b.Against the judgment and decree, present appellant haspreferred this appeal. 6fa-2404-2025+++FIRST APPEAL NO. 2449 OF 2025(Presented on 13.08.2025)a.Contending that the appellant/plaintiff sustained loss tohis agricultural land as also to the agricultural produce due tothe act of the respondent having exercised under Section 10 ofthe Act of 1885, the appellant/plaintiff sued the presentrespondent before the learned District Judge-11 atAurangabad under Section 16(9) of the Act of 1885. Theseproceedings were titled as Civil Suit No.9 of 2019. After goingthrough the evidence and hearing the concerned parties, thelearned District Judge-11, exercising its jurisdiction underSection 16(3) of the Act of 1885 passed a judgment and orderdated 21.02.2025, thereby directing the respondent/corporation to pay Rs.7,900/- together with 6 percent interestper annum, to the plaintiff/appellant. Pertinent to note thatthe learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad also drew a decreeon 21.02.2025, pursuant to the judgment and order.b.Against the judgment and decree, present appellant haspreferred this appeal. 7fa-2404-2025+++3.Heard Mr. K. D. Jadhav, learned Advocate for theappellants, who sought to convince the Court that the FirstAppeals are perfectly maintainable under Section 96 of theCivil Procedure Code.4.Mr. Girish Rane, learned Advocate who usually appearsfor the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. hasalso marked his presence in the matter, pursuant to havingcalled upon by the Court for assistance.5.Mr. K. D. Jadhav, learned Advocate in order todemonstrate that the present proceedings are absolutelymaintainable as First Appeals under Section 96 of the CivilProcedure Code, submitted three points as under:i.That, the proceeding under Section 16(3),which was instituted at the behest of the presentappellant was registered by the learned DistrictJudge-11, Aurangabad as a ‘Civil Suit’.ii. That, since the proceeding wasundisputedly was a ‘Civil Suit’, it is rightlydisposed of under a judgment and order, whichis also accompanied by a decree.iii. That, since the decree passed by thelearned District Judge-11, Aurangabad fallsunder the definition of ‘decree’ as per Section 2, 8fa-2404-2025+++sub Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, theappeal under Section 96 is the only remedy forthe appellants.iv. Last but not the least, Mr. K. D. Jadhavfurther submitted that a claimant in anycompensation case, which is tried in theoriginal/Trial Court, must get an opportunity forre-assessment of the evidence in an appellateforum to demonstrate any inadequacy orrejection of the compensation claimed by suchclaimant.6.With this, Mr. K. D. Jadhav, learned Advocate for theappellant in all appeals submitted that the appeals are rightlyinstituted under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code andthat, this Court has every jurisdiction under Section 96 of theCivil Procedure Code to examine correctness of the judgmentand decree impugned in the First Appeals. He thereforerequested to overrule the objection raised by the Registry.7.Mr. Girish Rane, learned Advocate representing thePower Grid Corporation of India Ltd. however submits thatthe original claim trial proceeding is instituted under the Actof 1885. That, the remedial provision to challenge thecompensation granted by the respondent/authority has been 9fa-2404-2025+++given under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885 to the DistrictCourts. That, Section 16(5) of the Act of 1885 clearly saysthat the decision of the District Courts under the proceedinginstituted under Section 16(3) and also under Section 16(4)of the Act of 1885 shall be final. With this, Mr. Girish Rane, learned Advocate for the respondent/corporation submits thatpresent First Appeals won’t be maintainable in the given formand under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.8.Upon having heard both the parties at length, I framedfollowing points for consideration:Sr.No.PointsFindings1Whether this Court can exercise jurisdiction u/s 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against a decision rendered by Ld. District Judge u/s 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 if such decision is in the form of a ‘Decree’ ?No.2If no, what’s the fate of proceeding and what is the procedure? As per final order.3What OrderAs per final order9.To answer the points framed, it would be appropriate tolook into the definition of ‘decree’ as well as the provision ofFirst Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, asalso the relevant provisions under the Act of 1885. 10fa-2404-2025+++Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:(2) "decree" means the formal expression of anadjudication which, so far as regards the Courtexpressing it, conclusively determines the rightsof the parties with regard to all or any of thematters in controversy in the suit and may beeither preliminary or final. It shall be deemed toinclude the rejection of a plaint and thedetermination of any question within [3]* * *section 144, but shall not include-(a) any adjudication from which an appeal liesas an appeal from an order, or(b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation-A decree is preliminary whenfurther proceedings have to be taken before thesuit can be completely disposed of. It is finalwhen such adjudication completely disposes ofthe suit, it may be partly preliminary and partlyfinal; Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:96. Appeal from original decree (1) Save whereotherwise expressly provided in the body of thisCode or by any other law for the time being inforce, an appeal shall lie from every decreepassed by any Court exercising originaljurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appealsfrom the decisions of such Court.(2) An appeal may lie from an original decreepassed ex parte.(3) No appeal shall lie from a decree passed bythe Court with the consent of parties.[(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question oflaw, from a decree in any suit of the nature 11fa-2404-2025+++cognisable by Courts of Small Cause, when theamount or value of the subject-matter of theoriginal suit does not exceed ten thousandrupees.]Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 188510. Power for telegraph authority to place andmaintain telegraph lines and posts .—Thetelegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, anyimmovable property:Provided that—(a) the telegraph authority shall not exorcise thepowers conferred by this section except for thepurposes of a telegraph establish Ectormaintained by the 1 [Central Government], or tobe so established or maintained;(b) the 1[Central Government] shall not acquireany right other than that of user only in theproperty under, over, along, across, in or uponwhich the telegraph authority places anytelegraph line or post;(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraphauthority shall not exercise those powers inrespect of any property vested in or under thecontrol or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred bythis section, the telegraph authority shall do aslittle damage as possible, and, when it hasexercised those powers in respect of anyproperty other than that referred to in clause 12fa-2404-2025+++(c), shall pay full compensation to all personsinterested for any damage sustained by them byreason of the exercise of those powers. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 188516. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10,and disputes as to compensation, in case ofproperty other than that of a local authority.—(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned insection 10 in respect of property referred to inclause (d) of that section is resisted orobstructed, the District Magistrate may, in hisdiscretion, order that the telegraph authorityshall be permitted to exercise them.(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise ofthose powers, or, having control over theproperty, does not give all facilities for theirbeing exercised, he shall be deemed to havecommitted an offence under section 188 of theIndian Penal Code (45 of 1860).(3) If any dispute arises concerning thesufficiency of the compensation to be paid undersection 10, clause (d), it shall, on application forthat purpose by either of the disputing parties tothe District Judge within whose jurisdiction theproperty is situate, be determined by him.(4) If any dispute arises as to the personsentitled to receive compensation, o r as to theproportions in which the persons interested arcentitled to share in it, the telegraph authoritymay pay into the Court of the District Judgesuch amount as he deems sufficient or, where all 13fa-2404-2025+++the disputing parties have in writing admittedthe amount tendered to be sufficient or theamount has been determined under sub-section(3), that amount; and the District Judge, aftergiving notice to the parties and hearing such ofthem as desire to be heard, shall determine thepersons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which thepersons interested are entitled to share in it.(5) Every determination of a dispute by aDistrict Judge under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final:Provided that nothing in this sub-section shallaffect the right of any person to recover by suitthe whole or any part of any compensation paidby the telegraph authority, from the person whohas received the same.10.It is clear from the plain reading of Section 16(5) of theAct of 1885 that ‘every determination of a dispute by a DistrictJudge under sub Section 3 and 4 of Section 16 shall be final’,meaning thereby, the Act does not provide any appellateprocedure itself, but also forbids any other statutory appellateprocedure.11.Sub section 1 of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Codelays down that ‘Save where “otherwise expressly provided” inthe body of this Code or by any other law for the time being inforce’, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any 14fa-2404-2025+++Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized tohear appeals from the decisions of such Court.12.It is apparent that the provision for appeal has beenmade from every ‘decree’ excepting the expressed provisions. Meaning thereby, the term “otherwise expressed provision”includes a remedial provision as also a restrictive provision inthe Code and any other Law for the time being in force as thecase may be. As such, the ‘subject matter decrees’ drawn bythe learned District Judge-11, Aurangabad would not fetchany legal significance to become appealable under Section 96of the Civil Procedure Code; nor would confer on this Court tojurisdiction under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code toexamine it’s legality and validity/correctness as a FirstAppellate Court.13.A conjoint reading of Section 16(5) of the Act of 1885and Section 96(1) of the Civil Procedure Code woulddemonstrate that ‘the decision taken by the District Courts in adispute referred to it or instituted before it under Section16(3) of the Act of 1885 is held to be final’, and falls out ofthe purview of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Truethat the proceeding that was instituted by the respective 15fa-2404-2025+++appellants in the Court of learned District Judge-11,Aurangabad were styled and titled as ‘Civil Suits’, that itselfwould not create an exception to the aforesaid legal provisionsnor those provisions are made redundant only because oftitling a proceeding as Civil Suit.14.So far as, another contention of the appellant that‘a decree is drawn by the learned District Judge-11,Aurangabad’ pursuant to the respective judgments and orders, for the reasons stated above, such decree would not ipso factocreate/confer jurisdiction under Section 96 of the CivilProcedure Code for a First Appeal to be presented in thisCourt.15.Now on the last contention of the appellant seeking anappellate remedy for re-assessment of the evidence andvaluation for the claimed compensation is concern, aprofitable reference can be made to a judgment and orderrendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matterof Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now known asKalpataru Projects International Ltd.) Vs. Vinod and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731. 16fa-2404-2025+++16.Briefly speaking, in the above case the claimants thereinhave lodged their grievance in the concerned District Courtunder Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. A Writ Petition wasfiled either under Article 226 or 227 in the High Court againstthe judgment and order passed by the concerned DistrictCourt under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. This wasobviously because Section 16(5) of the Act of 1885, statutorilygives finality to the decision taken by the learned DistrictJudge under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. In the givencase, the order passed by the High Court was taken up beforethe Hon’ble Supreme Court questioning correct assessment ofthe compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court whiledisposing of the appeals pending before it observed that theLaw Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justiceas well as the Government of India to determine whether astatutory remedy of appeal should be provided against thejudgments and order passed by the District Courts in a disputeunder Section 16(3) and 16(4) of the Act of 1885. TheHon’ble Supreme Court also opined that there is need foruniformity in nomenclature of the case filed under Section16(3) of the Act of 1885. For the sake of convenience, 17fa-2404-2025+++paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment in Kalpataru (supra) arereproduced as follows:33.Needless to add here that, in the processof determination of compensation, evidence willhave to be led by the parties. Unless statutoryremedy of appeal is provided where all issues oflaw and facts can be re-examined, any otherremedy may be illusionary. As is noticed in thefacts of the present case, the remedies availed bydifferent parties were different. In some of thecases, writ petitions were filed by thelandowners under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, impugning the judgmentand decree of the civil court and in some of thecases, the contractor as well as the landownersfiled petitions under Article 227 of theConstitution of India. Reappreciation of evidencein those proceedings may be an issue. Remedymay not be effective and can become illusionary.34.Not only this, but the anomalies as havebeen referred to ain the paragraph 30 withreference to various timelines as well, the matterneeds to be examined.35.In the aforesaid background, we are of theopinion that these issues need to be examined bythe Law Commission of India and the Ministry ofLaw and Justice, Government of India, so as todetermine whether a statutory remedy of appealshould be provided against judgments/orderspassed under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the1885 Act, the Petroleum Act or any other similarstatute. 18fa-2404-2025+++36.Section 16(3) of 1885 Act, provides thatan application can be filed before the DistrictJudge in case of a dispute related tocompensation. In district Sonepat, such anapplication was registered and numbered as aCivil Suit where a judgment and decree has beenpassed. Whereas in district Jhajjar, the same wasregistered as a Civil Miscellaneous Applicationand only judgment has been passed. There isneed to bring uniformity in the nomenclature tobe assigned to these kinds of proceedings, whichmay come to the court under the 1885 Act andalso the proceedings under the Petroleum andMinerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Userin Land) Act, 1962.17.Thus, it is clear that although in a dispute under Section16(3) or 16(4) of the Act of 1885, as the case might be styledand titled in any nomenclature, the provision of Section 16(5)shall prevail over such decision.18.In view of above, I am of the considered view that thisCourt cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 96 of theCivil Procedure Code against any decision, may be in the formof a judgment, judgment & order and a judgment & order witha decree passed by the District Court exercising thejurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885.19.It is quite clear from the judgment and order passed bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalpataru (supra), 19fa-2404-2025+++that the parties aggrieved by a decision rendered by DistrictCourts under Section 16(3) or 16(4) of the Act of 1885, havetaken recourse to Article 226 as also to Article 227 of theConstitution of India in respective cases. The Hon’ble SupremeCourt at paragraph 27 of the said judgment has observed asfollows:27.In the present case as well, some partiesinvoked Article 226 of the Constitution, whereasothers filed petitions invoking Article 227 of theConstitution. This is solely because no properappellate remedy has been provided. The onlyscope of interference in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court would bewithin the parameters of judicial review.20.In view of above, in the peculiar facts, this Court caneither reject the appeal as not maintainable in view of Section16(5) of the Act of 1885, or the appeal can be returned to theappellants under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Civil ProcedureCode for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The powers u/oOrder VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 are mutuallyexclusive.21.At this stage it would beneficial to quote what thisCourt has observed in the case of “Roda Mehta case”(Roda Jal Mehta & Others Versus Homi Framrose Mehta &Others, reported in AIR 1989 Bombay 359) which is 20fa-2404-2025+++reproduced as follows:"If I am not empowered to receive a plaint, Icannot deal with such a plaint. If I am notempowered to receive, I cannot keep it in therecords of this Court. I must necessarily returnthe plaint to the person who has tendered such aplaint. I cannot understand how on this basis Ican dismiss the plaint when I am not empoweredto receive the same."22.In view of above, and considering that the poor farmerswho are appellants in the present proceedings, who due tomisconception of law have presented these First Appeals bypaying Court Fees, I deem it appropriate in the interest ofjustice to return the appeals to the appellants under Order VIIRule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Needless to mentionappellants may present the proceedings in proper form andbefore proper forum in view of paragraph 19 of this order.23.It is ordered accordingly on 25.09.2025 by intimation tothe appellant.( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )Rushikesh/2025