ORDER : 1. Learned District Judge, Bilaspur allowed a petition filed by respondent No.1 under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act and held him entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.24,219/- alongwith 9% interest. The Project Proponent has challenged this order in the instant writ petition. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Respondent No.1-Krishanu Ram moved an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act (in short ‘Act’) read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. He pleaded that he was joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share. Copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 in support of such assertion was appended alongwith the application. His case was that the project proponent had carried out the work of laying down the electricity transmission line from Kol Dam to Nalagarh and in that process, had erected Tower No.33 over the suit land. While constructing and erecting the tower, about 10 bighas of suit land alongwith crops and fruit bearing/non-fruit bearing trees/plants etc. standing over the same, were damaged. His grievance was that despite the fact that the damage to the extent of Rs.8 Lakhs was caused because of erection of tower on the suit land, the project proponent did not pay any compensation to the applicant. In all, a compensation of Rs.8 Lakhs for the damages caused over the suit land was prayed for by the applicant. 2(ii). The project proponent opposed the claim petition. Its stand was that it had assessed damages to the suit land at Rs.96,876/-. This compensation amount had been paid to the brothers of the applicant, who are joint owners of the suit land. The brothers of the applicant were in physical possession over the suit land as per their family arrangement and shares. The applicant had not objected to payment and disbursement of such compensation in favour of his brothers. The project proponent also took a preliminary objection with respect to the non-joinder of applicant’s brothers as necessary parties to the petition. 2(iii). Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 2(iv). After considering the entire material on record, learned District Judge, Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 3.3.2014, allowed the claim petition. The project proponent also took a preliminary objection with respect to the non-joinder of applicant’s brothers as necessary parties to the petition. 2(iii). Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 2(iv). After considering the entire material on record, learned District Judge, Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 3.3.2014, allowed the claim petition. The claimant was held entitled to compensation amount of Rs.24,219/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the application. This judgment has been assailed by the project proponent by filing the instant writ petition. 3. Contentions:- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with the petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the project proponent/writ petitioner contended that the compensation on account of damage caused to the suit land by erection of Tower No.33, had been paid by the project proponent (writ petitioners) to the brothers of the applicant. There was a family arrangement/ partition amongst the brothers with respect to the suit land, pursuant to which the brothers of the applicant were in physical possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the compensation was paid to them. It was incumbent upon the applicant to have impleaded his brothers as parties to the application. Their non-impleadment is fatal to the petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the findings returned in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Observations:- What comes out cumulatively from the reading of the pleadings, evidence and documents on record is that:- 4(i). As per the revenue documents (Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, Ext. PW-1/A), the applicant is recorded as joint owner in possession to the extent of 1/4th share over the suit land comprising Khata Khatoni No.79/87, Khasra Nos.749/487 and 784/489, measuring 18-16 Bighas, situated in Village Assa-Majari, Sub-Tehsil Namhol, District Bilaspur, H.P. 4(ii). As per the revenue record, the suit land is still joint and not partitioned amongst the applicant and his brothers. 4(iii). Sh. Jindu Ram, one of the brothers of the applicant, stepped in the witness box as PW-2 and stated that the applicant was living in Village Gassaur for the last about 45 years, but that does not mean that he has no right or interest over the suit land. Jindu Ram supported applicant’s contentions. 4(iv). 4(iii). Sh. Jindu Ram, one of the brothers of the applicant, stepped in the witness box as PW-2 and stated that the applicant was living in Village Gassaur for the last about 45 years, but that does not mean that he has no right or interest over the suit land. Jindu Ram supported applicant’s contentions. 4(iv). There is no evidence on record to prove that by way of any family partition/arrangement, the suit land was allotted to other co-owners to the exclusion of the applicant. The alleged family partition/arrangement was not proved on record. 4(v). According to the project proponent, Rs.96,876/- were assessed as damages on account of erection of tower over the suit land. The damage was assessed by the project proponent on its own. This amount was paid by it to the brothers of the applicant. It is not the stand of the project proponent that it paid the compensation amount or any part thereof to the applicant. 4(vi). It is not the case of project proponent that the applicant had authorized his brothers to accept the compensation amount falling to his share. 4(vii). The objection that the claim petition deserved dismissal for non-impleadment of brothers of the applicant is without any force. It is not the case of the project proponent that it had made any payment of compensation amount to the applicant. One of the brothers of the applicant had stepped into witness box as PW-2 and supported the case of the applicant. 4(viii). Once the applicant is proved to be the joint owner in possession over the suit land, then he has equal right, like other co-owners, to receive compensation on account of damages caused to the suit land due to erection of tower over the same. Admittedly, no compensation has been paid to the applicant. 4(ix). Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, becomes relevant in this regard. It reads as under:- “10. Admittedly, no compensation has been paid to the applicant. 4(ix). Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, becomes relevant in this regard. It 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 exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [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; and (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.” A perusal of Section 10(d) makes it evident that in case of damage to the property, the telegraph authority shall pay full compensation to ‘all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers’. In the instant case, the project proponent (writ petitioners) erected tower No.33 over the suit land. Damage was caused to the suit land by erection of the transmission tower over the suit land. Damage has been assessed by the project proponent in terms of the Act to the extent of Rs.96,876/-. The assessed compensation amount on account of damage to the suit land was paid by the project proponent only to the brothers of the applicant and not to the applicant. The applicant was joint owner in possession over the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share. His name has been reflected as such in the revenue record, which carries presumption of truth. The applicant was joint owner in possession over the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share. His name has been reflected as such in the revenue record, which carries presumption of truth. The project proponent failed to prove any partition/family arrangement with respect to the suit land. One of the brothers of the applicant stepped in the witness box and supported the version of the applicant. In terms of provisions of Section 10(d) of the Act, the applicant is also entitled for compensation. It was incumbent upon the project proponent to ensure that assessed compensation amount is disbursed to all the interested persons in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, directing the writ petitioner/project proponent to pay 1/4th of the assessed compensation amount of Rs.96,876/-, i.e. Rs.24,219/-, alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the application, to the applicant (respondent No.1). For all the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.