JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. Heard Mr. NC Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. FU Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondents and the legal heirs of respondent in WP(C) No. 6097/2012 who were substituted vide order dated 30.05.2019 passed in IA(Civil) No. 1698/2019. 2. In these writ petitions judgment dated 03.12.2011 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 86/2006, Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Misc. Case No. 85/2006 by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi are put under challenge. The facts of the case in all the writ petitions are same. The present petitioner Power Grid Corporation of India, an electrical power transmission Corporation entered into the premises of the respective respondents and carried out survey works for 132 KV EHV Transmission Line and while doing so some surface damage took place during the process of the alignment for erection of the structures for the said line. As per the claimants/respondents they raised objections but assured that they would be compensated as against the losses on receipt after sanction of the amount. But the claimants respondents even after various communications with the District Magistrate did not get any response following which individual applications under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were filed before the competent District Judge. The said petitions were registered as Misc. Case Nos. 86/2006, Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Misc. Case No. 85/2006. 3. Notices were issued to the present petitioner and on receipt of the same, it filed its written objections raising the issue that the petitions are not maintainable and the same are hit under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Denying the claim and the averments made in the petition it is the case of the present petitioner that there were no objections by the claimants/respondents while drawing the alignment of the 132 KV transmission line. There was no engagement of police force by the petitioner and it is further stated that whatever minimum damage were caused to the respondents, the same were recorded in presence of the claimants/respondents and notices under the Act were also served on the respondents. The Revenue Authority, Government of Assam, Hailakandi assessed the value of surface damage compensation for an amount of Rs. 5179/-, Rs. 5193/-, Rs. 6907/- and Rs. The Revenue Authority, Government of Assam, Hailakandi assessed the value of surface damage compensation for an amount of Rs. 5179/-, Rs. 5193/-, Rs. 6907/- and Rs. 10,753/- in Misc. Case No. 86/2006, Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Misc. Case No. 85/2006 respectively based on prevailing Government approved rate along with the rate furnished by the Assam Agricultural Marketing Officer, Silchar and Department of Forest, Assam. It further pleaded that the claim petitions of the claimants/respondents were liable to be dismissed. 4. By the impugned judgments, the learned District Judge, Hailakandi awarded an amount of Rs. 1,61,490/- in Misc. Case No. 86/2006, Rs. 2,92,820/- in Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Rs. 5,20,167/- in Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Rs. 2,61,340/- in Misc. Case No. 85/2006 under Sections 10 and 16 of the Act read with Section 43 and 55 of the Indian Electricity Act. The learned District Judge further directed the present petitioner to pay aforesaid amount of compensation within 60 days from the date of passing of the award and on failure the said amount would carry an interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the payment were made. 5. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the learned court below was not justified in entertaining the claim petitions keeping in view that the same were barred under the law of limitation. The claimants/respondents having received the compensation as assessed duly by the Revenue Authority and that too, without raising any objection are estopped to file claim petitions further. The said aspects of the matter were overlooked by the court below and as such, there is a failure of jurisdiction on the part of the learned court below. 6. Mr. Barbhuiya, on the other hand, submits that in the claim petitions it was specifically mentioned that an assurance was made by the District Administration along with the officials of the petitioner Corporation that the respondents would be compensated as per the law and to the full satisfaction of the claims raised by the claimants/respondents. Even after such assurance and on various representations, the petitioner Corporation failed to compensate and as such though the amount assessed by the Revenue Authority was accepted but being dissatisfied with the assessment, the claimants/respondents rightly filed the respective petitions for compensation. The contention of Mr. Das, as submitted by Mr. Even after such assurance and on various representations, the petitioner Corporation failed to compensate and as such though the amount assessed by the Revenue Authority was accepted but being dissatisfied with the assessment, the claimants/respondents rightly filed the respective petitions for compensation. The contention of Mr. Das, as submitted by Mr. Barbhuiya that the petitions are barred by law of limitation cannot be accepted inasmuch cause of action arose out of continuing demands from the day on which the petitioner Corporation entered into the premises of the claimants/respondents and unless the due compensation are paid the act of filing the petition under Section 16 of the Act cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Accordingly, he supports the findings and the awards of the learned court below with a further submission that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 16 of the Act, in my opinion, has to be read along with the Section 10 of the same Act. Section 10 authorises the telegraph authority from time to time to place and maintain a telegraph line passing through any immovable property. Section 10 (d) of the Act stipulates that in exercise of the powers conferred, 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) is bound to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers by the telegraph authority. While assessing the compensation as per Section 16 (3), if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10(d), either of the disputing parties shall file an application for that purpose to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated and the same shall be determined by the said District Judge. Such determination by the District Judge under sub section (3) of Section 16 shall be final. However, by the proviso to the said Section 16 of the Act any party dissatisfied with such award is given the liberty to recover the said amount of compensation by filing a suit from the party who received the same. 8. Such determination by the District Judge under sub section (3) of Section 16 shall be final. However, by the proviso to the said Section 16 of the Act any party dissatisfied with such award is given the liberty to recover the said amount of compensation by filing a suit from the party who received the same. 8. On perusal of Section 16(3) of the Act, the District Judge concerned can invoke the jurisdiction under the said provision only if there is any dispute between the parties concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10(d) of the Act. In the present case in hand, the present claimants/respondents pleaded that even after assurances made by the petitioner it failed to honour its assurance by granting the compensation. On the other hand, it is the stand taken by the petitioner Corporation in the written objections that the actual compensation and that too, as per the Government approved rate, the amount so assessed were duly received by the claimants/respondents without any objection. On the basis of the pleadings, learned court below framed the following point for determination:- (i) Whether the claim petition of the petitioner is maintainable under the present form and whether the petitioner is entitled to get the enhanced surface damage compensation at an enhanced rate under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885? 9. While deciding the aforesaid point for determination, the learned court below failed to give its finding as to whether the court below can exercise the jurisdiction inasmuch as it is mandatory on the part of the court below that only if there is a dispute, the District Judge can invoke its jurisdiction under section 16(3) of the Act. In order to exercise the jurisdiction, on a plain reading of Section 16(3) of the Act a duty is cast upon the court to look into the pleadings but not the relief and only on its satisfaction that there exists a dispute as regards to sufficiency of compensation between the parties can invoke its jurisdiction. There is no finding as to whether there is any dispute between the parties concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10(d) of the Act. The Act is a special legislation giving a jurisdiction to the District Judge only to adjudicate a dispute, if arisen, between the parties before him in respect of the subject referred in Section 10(d). The Act is a special legislation giving a jurisdiction to the District Judge only to adjudicate a dispute, if arisen, between the parties before him in respect of the subject referred in Section 10(d). If there is no dispute then the competent District Judge has no jurisdiction nor it can assume the jurisdiction for giving a decision thereof. If we look into the proviso of the said section 16 of the Act, authorising any aggrieved party to move the civil court for recovery of the amount, in my opinion, the District Judge concerned is an adjudicator authorised by the said Act for deciding the specific issue subject to the existence of a dispute between the parties in a summary manner. So the District Judge must give a finding in respect of the fact that there exists a dispute between the parties and once the District Judge is satisfied by giving reasons thereof then only the District Judge can apply his jurisdiction under section 16(3) of the Act. 10. Keeping in view the stand of the petitioner in the written objection, in my opinion, the learned court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction by giving its finding that there is a dispute between the parties concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10 (d) of the Act inasmuch as there is a specific pleading in the written objection of the petitioner Corporation that due compensation were paid to the claimants/respondents which were received without any protest. The meaning of the word "dispute" is a controversy having both positive and negative aspects. It postulates the assertion of a claim by one party and its denial by the other as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank and others v. National Thermal Power Corporation and another, (2001) 1 SCC 43 . But in the present cases in hand there is no finding to the effect that a dispute arose between the parties to this proceeding. 11. From the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the learned court below made a jurisdictional error which is apparent on the face of the impugned judgments. Accordingly, I am constrained to set aside the impugned judgments dated 03.12.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 86/2006, Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Misc. 11. From the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, the learned court below made a jurisdictional error which is apparent on the face of the impugned judgments. Accordingly, I am constrained to set aside the impugned judgments dated 03.12.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 86/2006, Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Misc. Case No. 85/2006 by the court of learned District Judge, Hailakandi and remand the same to pass the judgment afresh keeping in view the observations made hereinabove by this court. 12. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 13. Lcrs of Misc. Case No. 86/2006, Misc. Case No. 84/2006, Misc. Case No. 95/2005 and Misc. Case No. 85/2006 be sent back immediately to the learned court below and the parties to these writ petitions shall appear before the learned court below on 03.09.2019 whereafter the court below shall dispose of the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of appearance of the parties to these writ petitions before the learned court below. 14. These writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No cost.