Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Supreme Court
Supreme Court Asks Law Commission To Determine Whether Statutory Remedy Of Appeal Should Be Provided Against Orders Passed U/S.16 Telegraph Act
|The Supreme Court said that in the absence of defined parameters, it will depend on different Courts, how they interpret the provisions.
The Supreme Court has asked Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice to determine whether a statutory remedy of Appeal should be provided against Judgments or Orders passed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
The Court was hearing a batch of Civil Appeals filed by the landowners, challenging a common Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by which a bunch of 9 matters were decided.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal remarked, “… we are of the opinion that these issues need to be examined by the Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, so as to determine whether a statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against judgments/orders passed under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the 1885 Act, the Petroleum Act or any other similar statute.”
The Bench said that in the absence of defined parameters, it will depend on different Courts, how they interpret the provisions.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta appeared for the Appellant while Senior AAG Lokesh Sinhal appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The landowners before the Court were seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of damages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towers, whereas the Contractor is before the Court, challenging the amount of compensation awarded. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL), a public company owned by the State Government initiated a power transmission project, titled “400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1,” by issuing a Request for Quotation (RFQ) in 2009. Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited (JKTPL) was selected as the lowest bidder for the transmission project and was awarded the project under an agreement in 2010. Subsequently, it entered into a sub-contract for erection, commissioning & other services with Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. i.e., the Appellant. The total length of transmission line is 100 km. The issue arose regarding compensation to which the landowners may be entitled to for the damages suffered on account of erection of towers and drawing the power lines.
The ownership of land was not transferred. The Trial Court initially awarded total compensation of ₹30,00,000/- under various heads. This was challenged by the contractor and the High Court set aside the same by remanding the case back for determination of compensation afresh. On remand, the Trial Court assessed the total compensation at ₹26,12,000/- to be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum from April 2011 till realization. The compensation was awarded under various heads. Being aggrieved, both parties filed Petitions and the High Court awarded a uniform compensation @ 85% of the collector rate beneath the tower area to the landowners, which was determined at ₹1.50 crores per acre. Besides this, for diminishing the value of land across the width of Right of Way (ROW), 15% of the value of land was awarded as compensation. It was on account of imposition of restrictions on utilization thereof.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “The High Court failed to appreciate the fundamental fact that land pertaining to different villages falling in different districts, which may be the subject matter of consideration for assessment of compensation, would have been assessed differently by the Collector based on their respective locations and characteristics. Even in the case in hand, facts only pertaining to district Sonepat have been discussed. From Page 24 of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the land involved even in those cases, is located at different places, some close to Highway, whereas some at a distance.”
The Court was of the view that the Order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained. Hence, it set aside the same and remitted the matters back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
“If we examine the scope of first appeal under any statute, entire case is open for re-hearing, both on questions of facts and on law. The First Appellate Court is required to address all the issues considered in the order impugned and decide the same by giving reasons. It is in fact continuation of the original proceedings. The power of the First Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the trial court, unless the scope thereof is limited by the statute which provides for the appellate jurisdiction”, it noted.
The Court further said that with the rapid pace of development in the electrical and power sector, the volume of litigation has increased significantly, necessitating compensation under the 1885 Act.
“Besides there being no appellate remedy, we find that there are other gaps as well in the statutory scheme … The Act also does not provide the rate at which interest is to be paid to the landowners in case there is any delay in payment of compensation. This being an Act of Parliament, its application has to be uniform throughout the country”, it added.
The Court also noted that there are many different statutes under which the ownership of the land is acquired by the competent authority in exercise of powers conferred under those statutes and wherever such a power is exercised, the natural corollary is, the landowner is to be adequately compensated.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court enunciated, “It is noticed that under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 196212, the provisions are similar to the case in hand. In fact, Section 10 of the aforesaid Act is pari-materia to Section 16 of the 1885 Act. District Judge of the concerned district is the competent Court, whose jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge the sufficiency of compensation. As per Section 10(6) of the aforesaid Act, order of the District Judge is final.”
The Court emphasised that there is a need to bring uniformity in the nomenclature to be assigned to these kinds of proceedings, which may come to the Court under the 1885 Act and also the proceedings under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.
“A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for placing the same before Hon’ble Chief Justice for taking the appropriate steps in terms of observations made in paragraph 36 above. … The Registry of this Court shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to examine the issue and take appropriate steps. New Delhi August 19, 2025”, it directed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals and requested the High Court to make an effort to take up the matters expeditiously.
Cause Title- Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod and Ors. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1004)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, AORs Arvind Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, Advocates Surinder Singh, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Manu Krishnan, Sunil Mittal, Madhavi Agarwal, Amit Sagar, Amit Kumar, and Jimut Mohapatra.
Respondents: Senior AAG Lokesh Sinhal, AORs Rakesh Dahiya, Arvind Gupta, Samar Vijay Singh, Advocates Surinder Singh, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma, Gaj Singh, Nikunj Gupta, Akanksha, and Ishika Gupta.