Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1037 (HP)

Kamlesh Kumar v. Jaypee Powergrid Ltd.

2018-05-31

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. In present petition, main grievance of the petitioner is that during laying down electricity transmission line by respondent No. 1, 38 trees of different specious, standing on his land, have been damaged, whereas the compensation for only 12 trees have been paid to him. 2. It is undisputed that work of laying transmission line stands completed and damage has calculated by respondent No. 1 as its own which stands disbursed to the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner has claimed the same to be inadequate, as the total number of damaged trees have not been taken into consideration for calculating damages to trees and also the damage caused to the land has not been considered for determining the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 9740 of 2011, titled Diwan Singh Vs. Jaypee Powergrid Ltd. and others decided on 29th December, 2011 and submit that his case is squarely covered by the direction issued in the said judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner would be entitled to file an application under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (herein after referred to as the “Act”) before the District Judge only after determination of compensation under Section 10 (d) of the Act, whereas in present case, respondent No. 1 has determined compensation for 12 trees only instead of 38 trees and damage caused to the land has also not been assessed and when there is no damage calculated and paid under Section 10(d) of the Act. Section 16 of the Act will not be applicable, therefore, he prays for direction to respondent No. 1 to determine the damage for making compensation under Section 10(d) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that like Diwan Singh’s case the amount of compensation has been determined by respondent No. 1 and stands disbursed to the petitioner as prescribed under Section 10(d) of the Act, but she asserts that there were only 12 number of tress on the land of the petitioner, for which he has duly been compensated. 5. As apparent from rival contentions, there is dispute between the parties with regard to damage caused to the number of trees and land as well as quantum thereof. 5. As apparent from rival contentions, there is dispute between the parties with regard to damage caused to the number of trees and land as well as quantum thereof. Section 16 of the “Act” provides that in case any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 of the Act, it shall be determined by District Judge in whose jurisdiction property situates, on application filed by either of disputing parties for that purpose. In absence of making application by Telegraph Department, it was for petitioner to make such application to District Judge. 6. In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, compensation had already been assessed by respondent No. 1, but had not been disbursed and therefore, keeping in view the provisions of the Act, it was directed that said amount shall be paid to the petitioner therein, whereafter, in case the petitioner was still aggrieved, it was kept open to take recourse/remedy under Section 16 of the Act before the District Judge within another month and in such situation the District Judge was directed to consider the matter on merits and dispose of the same within six months. 7. In present case the amount as per respondent No. 1 has not only determined, but has also been disbursed to the petitioner, but instead of invoking the provisions of Section 16 of the Act, petitioner has approached this Court despite having efficacious alternative remedy available to him. 8. Considering the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and also after going through the provisions of the Act, I find that, respondent No. 1, to the best of its wisdom, has determined the compensation under Section 10(d) of the Act for damage of property which may or may not be correct. Any dispute with regard to sufficiency of assessment as alleged that compensation for 12 trees only has been paid and all 38 trees standing on land have not been taken into consideration and also that damage for land has also not been assessed, is certainly questionable before the District Judge under Section 16 of the Act. 9. Any dispute with regard to sufficiency of assessment as alleged that compensation for 12 trees only has been paid and all 38 trees standing on land have not been taken into consideration and also that damage for land has also not been assessed, is certainly questionable before the District Judge under Section 16 of the Act. 9. In Diwan Singh’s case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner also, the amount of compensation determined by respondent No. 1, was ordered to be disbursed and any dispute, with regard to sufficiency thereof, was directed to be raised before the District Judge, as provided under Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has to approach the District Judge concerned for all issues raised in this petition which along with other if any are to be determined by him in accordance with law. 10. In view of above discussion, present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Judge under Section 16 of the Act by filing a comprehensive application within one month from receipt of certified copy of this judgment and to raise all issues and contentions before him, who after receiving such application shall dispose of the same on merits preferably within six months thereafter. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations, so also the pending applications, if any.