High Court · 2025

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order dated 13.07.2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.25139 of 2020, wherein direction has been issued to the District Magistrate to determine identity of the land as also the title of claimant. Paragraph nos.7 to 9 of the order dated 13.07.2023 are reproduced hereinafter:- "7. In view of the above, their is no occasion for taking any different view. The instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the directions issued by order dated 29.3.2019 in Writ C No. 37675 of 2018.

8. At this stage, Sri Pratik J. Nagar submitted that the District Magistrate should determine the identity of the land as also the title of the claimant, to which learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection.

9. We accordingly direct that the District Magistrate, Bareilly shall also carry out the above exercise while determining the compensation."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that determination of compensation of trees would be in accordance with the provisions of Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 16(3) of the Act provides that right of determination of such issues would be by the District Judge concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that since the Coordinate Bench has directed such claim to be considered by the District Magistrate as such this Court may also take similar view.

5. The issue raised in the present writ petition relates to the jurisdiction of District Magistrate viz-a-viz District Judge under Section 16 of the Act of 1885. Sub-section (1) of section 16 defines the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate while the powers of District Judge are dealt with in sub-section (3). Section 16 of the Act of 1885, in its entirety, reads as under:- "6. 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 (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, o r as to the proportions in which the persons interested arc 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 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."

6. Perusal of above provision would clearly show that in exercise of powers mentioned in Section 10 of the Act of 1885, in respect of the property referred to in clause (d) of that section, the District Judge will have the jurisdiction in the matter. Section 10 of the Act, in its entirety, reads as under:- "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts .— The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property: Provided that— (a) the telegraph authority shall not exorcise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph establish Ector maintained by the 1 [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers."

7. The above two provisions have been noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 1141 where similar controversy fell for determination. Having noticed the scheme under the Act as well as power of District Magistrate and jurisdiction of District Judge to deal with the issue the Court observed as under in paragraph nos.25 and 26 of the judgment:- "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 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."

8. We have carefully examined the contentions raised in the present writ petition and have also adverted to the applicable law on the subject. It is not in issue that erection of electricity lines by the respondent corporation is regulated by the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The Act of 1885 lays down a complete code for the determination of compensation where the land of tenure holders are utilized for the purpose. The act also provides for the remedy where the tenure holder is aggrieved by the determination of compensation. It is admitted to the petitioners that they have been paid certain amount towards compensation and are claiming higher compensation in the matter. Once that be so, the remedy of the petitioner would be to approach the concerned forum in terms of Section 16(3) of Telegraph Act, 1885.

9. The District Magistrate otherwise has not been shown to be vested with any jurisdiction in the matter relating to determination of compensation. We are not inclined to confer jurisdiction upon an administrative authority particularly when a separate forum before the District Judge is already provided for such purposes under the statue. Consequently, prayer made in the writ petition to direct the respondents to examine his grievance is declined.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the petitioner to avail the remedy contemplated under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. In case such an approach is made within four weeks from today the same shall be considered by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Ashok Kr. ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order dated 13.07.2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.25139 of 2020, wherein direction has been issued to the District Magistrate to determine identity of the land as also the title of claimant. Paragraph nos.7 to 9 of the order dated 13.07.2023 are reproduced hereinafter:- "7. In view of the above, their is no occasion for taking any different view. The instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the directions issued by order dated 29.3.2019 in Writ C No. 37675 of 2018.

8. At this stage, Sri Pratik J. Nagar submitted that the District Magistrate should determine the identity of the land as also the title of the claimant, to which learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection.

9. We accordingly direct that the District Magistrate, Bareilly shall also carry out the above exercise while determining the compensation."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that determination of compensation of trees would be in accordance with the provisions of Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 16(3) of the Act provides that right of determination of such issues would be by the District Judge concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that since the Coordinate Bench has directed such claim to be considered by the District Magistrate as such this Court may also take similar view.

5. The issue raised in the present writ petition relates to the jurisdiction of District Magistrate viz-a-viz District Judge under Section 16 of the Act of 1885. Sub-section (1) of section 16 defines the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate while the powers of District Judge are dealt with in sub-section (3). Section 16 of the Act of 1885, in its entirety, reads as under:- "6. 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 (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, o r as to the proportions in which the persons interested arc 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 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."

6. Perusal of above provision would clearly show that in exercise of powers mentioned in Section 10 of the Act of 1885, in respect of the property referred to in clause (d) of that section, the District Judge will have the jurisdiction in the matter. Section 10 of the Act, in its entirety, reads as under:- "10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts .— The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property: Provided that— (a) the telegraph authority shall not exorcise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph establish Ector maintained by the 1 [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers."

7. The above two provisions have been noticed by the Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 1141 where similar controversy fell for determination. Having noticed the scheme under the Act as well as power of District Magistrate and jurisdiction of District Judge to deal with the issue the Court observed as under in paragraph nos.25 and 26 of the judgment:- "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 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."

8. We have carefully examined the contentions raised in the present writ petition and have also adverted to the applicable law on the subject. It is not in issue that erection of electricity lines by the respondent corporation is regulated by the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The Act of 1885 lays down a complete code for the determination of compensation where the land of tenure holders are utilized for the purpose. The act also provides for the remedy where the tenure holder is aggrieved by the determination of compensation. It is admitted to the petitioners that they have been paid certain amount towards compensation and are claiming higher compensation in the matter. Once that be so, the remedy of the petitioner would be to approach the concerned forum in terms of Section 16(3) of Telegraph Act, 1885.

9. The District Magistrate otherwise has not been shown to be vested with any jurisdiction in the matter relating to determination of compensation. We are not inclined to confer jurisdiction upon an administrative authority particularly when a separate forum before the District Judge is already provided for such purposes under the statue. Consequently, prayer made in the writ petition to direct the respondents to examine his grievance is declined.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the petitioner to avail the remedy contemplated under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. In case such an approach is made within four weeks from today the same shall be considered by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Ashok Kr. ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad