The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that as per Section 16 (3) of the Telegaraph Act, the District Judge and not the District Magistrate is the proper forum for the determination of the adequacy of compensation.

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the District Magistrate, Bareilly to decide their representation regarding land compensation.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. (2017), the Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit noted, “The Apex Court also affirmed in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) that it is the District Judge, and not the District Magistrate, who has jurisdiction under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act, to determine issues relating to adequacy and sufficiency of compensation.”

Advocate Udit Chandra represented the Petitioners, while Standing Counsel Mukul Tripathi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners are small-scale farmers who own agricultural land in Bareilly district. A scheme for Northern Region System Strengthening Scheme-XXI (Scheme) for laying a 400 kV Bareilly-Kashipur-RoorkeeSaharanpur D/C (Quad) transmission line was approved by the Ministry of Power, Government of India. In exercise of its powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, the Power Grid Corporation of India selected the petitioners' land along with some other villagers for the erection of poles/towers and laying down transmission lines for the execution of the scheme. In 2015, PGCIL issued separate cheques of varying amounts to the petitioners as compensation.

Some other farmers from the same district filed writ petitions alleging that they had received less compensation and they were equally compensated. The petitioners after getting knowledge of the compensation awarded to those other farmers who were petitioners, submitted representations before the respondent- District Magistrate seeking compensation for cutting of trees on their respective lands. Many other aggrieved farmers also came forth with same grievances. The District Magistrate decided on such representation. The Corporation challenged the same, but it came to be dismissed.

Meanwhile, the Central Government framed a policy dated October 15, 2015, for awarding compensation for damages caused to land due to the erection of poles/towers, in addition to compensation for trees, which was to be determined by the District Magistrate. Since the representation dated September 30, 2020, seeking compensation under the policy remained undecided by the first respondent- District Magistrate, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the project work had already been completed by this time. The Bench also made it clear that the matters involving policy decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the executive, and judicial interference in such matters is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or violation of fundamental rights.The Writ Court cannot substitute its wisdom with the policy making authorities unless it suffers from conditional infirmity. In view of the above, the present writ petition, which primarily seeks judicial intervention in a policy matter, does not warrant the Court’s indulgence at this stage.

It was noticed that before disbursing the compensation, no formal award was passed by the District Judge for the same. Reference was made to Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed that the proper forum for determination of adequacy of compensation under the Telegraph Act rests upon the District Judge, as per Section 16 (3) and not the District Magistrate.

The Bench said, “Accordingly, this Court concludes that the earlier compensation granted by PGCIL in absence of an award, was merely a suo moto payment made by the PGCIL, that is, Telegraph Authority under Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act and not under Section 18 (2) of the Telegraph Act, which requires an award to be passed following a diligent application by the Telegraph Authority.”

The High Court further clarified that as no award was passed by the Magistrate, the only remedy available to the petitioners, for their grievances in case they were aggrieved by the compensation or wanted to aggrandize the same which had been granted earlier by the Telegraph Authority, was to approach the District Judge under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act by filing an appropriate application.

The Bench thus disposed of the petition on the ground of an alternative remedy available under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act. “The petitioners are relegated to approach the District Judge for redressal of their grievances”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Rajendra Prasad and Others v. District Magistrate, Bareilly and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:45291-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Udit Chandra

Respondent: Standing Counsel Mukul Tripathi, Senior Advocate J. Nagar, Advocate Prateek J. Nagar

Click here to read/download OrderJustice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit







Allahabad High CourtJustice Shekhar B. SarafJustice Vipin Chandra Dixit

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.