JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The appeal is against the order passed by the District Judge dismissing a claim made by a land owner under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and read with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act for the value of trees cut by the Electricity Board while laying over-head wires. The Court took an issue of jurisdiction on objection taken by the Electricity Board that only a reference of arbitration could have been made and Civil Court’s jurisdiction had been barred by the provisions of the Electricity Act. It was also the contention of the Electricity Board that in any event, the trees were not cut and they had only been pruned and the value of the trees pruned was assessed at Rs.2400/- and that was refused to be received by the land owner. The District Court, therefore, dismissed the claim holding that the suit was not the proper remedy for the plaintiff and proceeded to dismiss it. The aggrieved land owner is in appeal before this Court. 2. It is not denied that the Electricity Board had laid overhead wires running over the plaintiff’s property and in the process cut some trees, which was euphemistically referred to by the Electricity Board as pruning of trees. According to the plaintiff, there were 89 fruit trees, of which there were 34 peach trees and 55 pear trees, all of which were fruit yielding. The land owner brought the evidence of a retired Director of Horticulture Department, who on inspection of the property and looking at size of the wooden stems and after making local enquiry regarding the age of the trees, gave a report that the Electricity Board would have assessed the value of the fruit yielding trees at Rs.73,039.65. He also gave evidence in support of his report. 3. The Electricity Board contended that the trees were not cut. They were only pruned at the place where the branches were likely to come in contact with the live wires and Electricity Board would rely on the statement elicited in the cross-examination of PW4, who gave evidence to the effect that no tree of the plaintiff was uprooted during the erection of transmission line but 40 trees of the plaintiff were pruned for the purpose. PW-4 was Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board. 4. PW-4 was Assistant Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board. 4. As regards the issue of jurisdiction, the relevant provisions which were extracted in the order in the trial Court would not require to be repeated again but suffice it to point out to the scope of the relevant provisions. Section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 makes reference to overhead lines and clause (1) provides for an authorization to the Electricity Board to lay overhead wires across the street, railway, tramway, canal or water way. After the State Government had approved the method of construction, this Section allows for the act of laying overhead lines across the public ways mentioned in the Section. Clause (3) of this Section is the relevant provision which allows for the power of the Electricity Board to secure the assistance of the Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to cause the removal of obstruction by any manner of the place where the overhead wires were sought to be taken for any tree standing or lying near the overhead line or where there was any structure or other object, which had been placed or fallen near the overhead line. Section 18 (1) and 18(3) read together to show that in the manner of laying overhead lines by the Electricity Board after a Government sanction, they can be taken across any street, railway, tramway, canal or waterway and Electricity Board also has a power to remove any obstruction at the instance of a land owner if they are required to cut any tree or remove any structure which came in the way of the overhead lines. Neither of these Sections provide for any right to claim damages by an owner, who is affected. 5. Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 is also referred to order of the District Judge, which allows for a power for placing wires, poles, wall brackets etc. This power is to be exercised notwithstanding anything contained under Section 18 and refers to its power to place wires, poles, wall brackets, stays etc. and also makes provision that the Electricity Board so exercising the power will have all the powers granted to the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885. This power is to be exercised notwithstanding anything contained under Section 18 and refers to its power to place wires, poles, wall brackets, stays etc. and also makes provision that the Electricity Board so exercising the power will have all the powers granted to the Telegraph Authority under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885. The Electricity Supply Act, 1948, therefore, derive on the power similar to the power of the Telegraph Authority of an earlier Imperial Enactment of the year 1885. This provision also does not make any reference for the grant of compensation or a claim to compensation by any person affected by the overhead wires to be drawn over the land owner’s property. Since the objection had been taken by the Electricity Board that the appropriate remedy must have been only to seek for arbitration and not for a claim before a District Judge, I have to also make reference to the particular provisions referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent namely Section 52 of the Electricity Act, 1910. 6. Section 52 of the Electricity Act, 1910 merely provides that where any matter is referred to under the Electricity Act to be determined to arbitration, the matter shall unless itself otherwise expressly provided in the licence of a licencee be determined by the person or persons as a State Government may nominate in that behalf by an Arbitrator and the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940 will be applicable. I have not been shown through any specific provision under the Electricity Act of 1910 which directs the dispute relating to a claim for damages to be referred to arbitration. It must be noticed that Section 52 itself does not say that every dispute between the Electricity Board and any private owner has to be referred to arbitration. I find the language of the Section in this fashion “where any matter is, by or under this Act, directed to be determined by arbitration........” The counsel for the Electricity Board would, therefore, say that there is no particular provision, which makes possible a reference to arbitration for a person claiming damages for the trees cut or removed or pruned by the Electricity Board. If there is no provision under the Electricity Act, 1910 or the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 then the powers of the Telegraph Authority to consider a claim will have to be examined. If there is no provision under the Electricity Act, 1910 or the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 then the powers of the Telegraph Authority to consider a claim will have to be examined. 7. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1995 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 empowers the Electricity Board to maintain any line under, over, along or across or upon any immovable property. The reference to telegraph line in Section 10 of the Telegraph Act must be substituted for electricity wires since the Act must be juxtaposed to the requirements of the Electricity Board for allowing electricity wires. If such a power is exercised under Section 10 then Section 16 states that if an authority exercised the power under Section 10, the dispute as to compensation in the case of a property other than a local authority, must be before a District Magistrate, who may in his discretion order the Telegraph Authority to exercise the power and if in the exercise of a power conferred under Section, there arise any dispute as to compensation then clause (3) of Section 16 provides that a dispute relating to compensation provided under Section 10(d) shall be decided by the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Clause (4) provides that the District Judge shall consider all disputes and pass an order in writing determining the compensation payable. Clause (5) provides that every determination of dispute by the District Judge shall become final. Reading of these Sections together, I have no doubt in my mind that the case could have been disposed of only by the District Judge and the power resided in him to make an adjudication regarding the dispute relating to the adequacy of compensation. The finding of the District Judge that he did not have the jurisdiction to decide the question of compensation was clearly erroneous. If the claim before the District Judge must have been through an original petition but the case was filed as original suit, it still does not affect the substantive rights of parties when the contesting parties were before the Court. 8. If the District Judge had the authority to adjudicate, the District Judge was in error in merely referring to the evidence of the respondent to say that what was done by the Electricity Board was merely one of pruning the trees and did not cause any loss. 8. If the District Judge had the authority to adjudicate, the District Judge was in error in merely referring to the evidence of the respondent to say that what was done by the Electricity Board was merely one of pruning the trees and did not cause any loss. I have observed that between pruning the trees and uprooting the trees, it would have made a difference if trees were still fruit yielding and the owner suffered no damages. In this case we have, apart from the evidence of the land owner himself, evidence of a neighbouring owner as well as an expert witness, who has applied his own personal knowledge in the field as Director of Horticulture Department and assessed the value at Rs.73,039.65. I have no reason to discard the same and I will provide for the entire amount as assessed by the Director, Horticulture Department. I reject the contention that the damage caused to the land owner was only Rs.2400/- as assessed by the Electricity Board. It was an unfair manner of assessment. The had allowed the powers vested in them to ride roughshod over the land owner’s land and has offered to him a meager compensation. The land owner shall be entitled to the amount as determined at Rs.73,039.65 and the same will also attract interest @9% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment. The land owner will also be entitled to costs, which is assessed at Rs.10,000/- against the respondents. 9. The appeal is allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————