Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs M/S Abhishek Developers

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISES) REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.B-9 QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA KATAWARIA SARAJ, NEW DELHI (REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR) NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MR. K.V. PRASAD.

¶11

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

¶12

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED (WRONGLY SHOWN IN W.P. AS POORNA PRASAD ROAD MAHADEV NAGAR GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

400KV SUB STATION SOMANAHALLI 26TH KM KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU -560 116 MR. K.V. PRASAD.

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL, ADV.,)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S ABHISHEK DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1211 "SRI. MAILARALINGA NILAYA" IST CROSS, IST MAIN, IST PHASE 5TH STATGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU-560098 (REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. SHIVASHANKAR H. PHULSE).

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT REVENUE BUILDING KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU -560 009.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER 3RD BLOCK, PODIUM BLOCK BENGALURU -560 001.

¶21

THE METROPOLITAN COMMISSIONER STRR PLANNING AUTHORITY AND BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BANGALORE -560 052.

¶22

MR. REVANNA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT. KUMBARANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 560 105.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ASHOK H. ADV., FOR C/R1 & R5 SRI. C.H. DEVRAJ, GOVT., ADV., FOR R2 & R3 SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADV., FOR R4)

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.9477/2021 (LA-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.9477/2021 (LA-RES). PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS/DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, INCLUDING AWARDING COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE APPELLANTS.

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶29

CAV JUDGMENT

¶30

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL )

¶31

This intra Court appeal is filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 assailing the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9477/2021 (LA-RES).

¶32

The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal

¶33

are that the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition seeking

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶35

prayer to quash the acquisition made by the appellants to draw high tension transmission power cables - Dharamapuri-Somanahalli D/C quad line over the lands of the respondent No.1 situated in Sy.Nos.14/7 and 14/8. Further, to direct the appellants to dismantle, remove the high tension line from the above survey numbers and also

¶36

to issue direction to the appellant No.1 to pay full compensation to the entire extent of the approved residential layout owned by the respondent No.1 comprising in Sy.Nos.16/1, 16/4, 16/6, 14/7 and 14/8 totally measuring 5 acres 7 guntas situated at Thimmasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The appellants opposed the writ petition by filing a detailed statement of objections stating that the laying of line covers only a small portion of the lands and there is no acquisition of lands as claimed by the respondent No.1. They sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶38

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition by directing the respondent No.1 to pay the ad hoc compensation to the respondent No.1-firm in respect of the subject lands totally measuring 5 acres 7 guntas within two weeks from the receipt of representation that may be filed by the respondent No.1-

¶39

firm. Further, liberty was reserved to the respondent No.1-firm to approach the learned District Judge to determine just compensation, if aggrieved by the award of ad hoc compensation. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in appeal.

¶40

Sri.Joshua Hudson Samuel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the writ petition is filed by the respondent No.1 on misconceived facts and law alleging that the appellants have acquired the lands. It is submitted that the appellants have only laid the transmission line above a small portion of the land of the respondent No.1. Hence, the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay the compensation to the entire land of

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶42

5 acres 7 guntas is contrary to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶43

It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in recording the finding that the compensation has been paid to the erstwhile owners of the lands in question. The erstwhile owners have not come forward to receive the compensation and the compensation is determined based on the revenue records standing at the time of survey and later the Corporation came to know that the lands in question was purchased by the respondent No.1. It is also submitted that it is always open for the respondent No.1 to approach the District Court and seek for higher compensation as per the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge has taken task of determining the compensation which is impermissible. The Deputy Commissioner has already determined the compensation as per the guidelines issued

¶44

7 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶46

by the Central Government to the lands in question and it is the respondent No.1 who has to seek for higher compensation before the Civil Court. Hence, the learned Single Judge ought not have entertained the writ petition and ought to have relegated the respondent No.1 to the Civil Court. It is contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge is nothing but usurping the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and further finding to pay the compensation to the entire land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas is contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which the learned Single Judge has referred in his judgment. The appellants cannot be compelled to pay the compensation to the other lands where the high tension line has not passed. Such a finding of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶47

It is also contended that the Deputy Commissioner has determined the compensation vide order dated 09.05.2017 for the entire stretch of lands

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶49

covered under the alignment including the lands in question. The Deputy Commissioner has shown the name of the occupant of the lands as per the revenue records and it was not within the knowledge of the appellant nor the revenue authorities that the respondent No.1 has purchased the land. Even now, the respondent No.1 can approach the Civil Court and seek for higher compensation stating that they are the purchasers of the lands in question and entitled for the higher compensation. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶50

Per contra, Sri.Ashok Hande, learned counsel

¶51

appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the respondent No.1 purchased the land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas for the purpose of formation of residential layout and due to laying of high tension wire over the proposed layout, has diminished the value of the entire property and are unable to form any layout. It is submitted that the appellant has not paid any compensation to the

¶52

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶53

respondent No.1. Such action is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 cannot approach the Civil Court as there is no determination of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner in their favour. The order of the Deputy Commissioner indicates that the compensation is determined in the name of the vendors of the respondent No.1. Hence, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to pay ad hoc compensation and liberty is granted to the respondent No.1 to approach the Civil Court for higher compensation. The said finding of the learned

¶54

Single Judge is upon consideration of the material available on record and the decisions of the various Courts, which does not call for any interference. He seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶55

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, meticulously perused the material

¶56

10 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶58

available on record and we have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the parties.

¶59

The respondent No.1 filed the writ petition seeking prayer to quash the acquisition made by the appellants to draw the high tension transmission power line over the lands bearing Sy.Nos.14/7 measuring 21 guntas and 14/8 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Thimmasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District owned by the respondent No.1. Further prayer was sought to dismantle and remove or to shift overhanging high tension line from the above said survey numbers and alternate prayer was to pay the full compensation to the entire extent of the approved residential layout owned by the respondent No.1 comprising of Sy.Nos.14/7 measuring 21 guntas, 14/8 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas, 16/1 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas, 16/4 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas and 16/6 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas, totally measuring 5 acres 7 guntas situated at Thimmasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli,

¶60

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶61

Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The respondent No.1 initially filed the writ petition seeking prayer to quash the acquisition of the land covered beneath the land in Sy.No.14/7 measuring 21 guntas and Sy.No.14/8 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas. Later, the writ petition came to be amended and the additional prayers were sought seeking compensation for the entire extent of land. The pleading on record indicates that the respondent No.1 purchased the land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas of Thimmasandra Village vide registered sale deed dated 09.07.2015 and got the land converted for residential purpose and it is pleaded that the Planning Authority approved the residential layout plan on 06.04.2016 and the respondent No.1 intended to form the residential layout in the aforesaid land. It is pleaded that due to the drawing of transmission line, the value of the property has diminished. Hence, it is entitled for the compensation for the entire land. The Deputy Commissioner has determined the ad hoc compensation on 09.05.2017 in favour of the erstwhile owner. The learned Single Judge, considering

¶62

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶63

the rival contentions, has come to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 is entitled to the ad hoc compensation to the entire land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas and further liberty is granted to approach the District Court to determine the just compensation.

¶64

The material available on record indicates that the appellant-Corporation has been authorized to exercise the powers vested in Part-III of the Act by the Ministry of Power, Government of India. The Ministry of Power entrusted the work of establishing the Salem (new) (Dharamapuri)-Somanahalli 400kv Quad D/C line for strengthening the Southern region, to the appellants. The transmission line alignment was fixed by the appellants and the work was entrusted through a tender to an agency. Admittedly, the power line passed over the lands in Sy.Nos.14/7 and 14/8 of Thimmasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Before laying the line, survey was conducted by the revenue authorities and the survey record indicates that the line

¶65

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶66

corridor area is 6.07 guntas in Sy.No.14/7 and 31.72 guntas in Sy.No.14/8. At the time of survey, the revenue records indicate that the aforesaid lands stood in the names of Revanna, Satish and Ramachandra, the vendors of the respondent No.1.

¶67

The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District passed a common order dated 09.05.2017 for payment of compensation for the various lands covered under the power line including the lands in Sy.Nos.14/7 and 14/8. The order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-R5 along with Annexure-1 indicates that the name of the occupants / cultivators as per the RTC is shown as Revanna. The said Annexure also indicates the name of the Village, survey number, extent as per RTC, market value fixed per acre, extent of land under tower in guntas, compensation to be paid to the occupant / cultivator, extent of line corridor (in guntas), compensation to be paid to the occupant / cultivator as per RTC (for line corridor area), compensation to be paid

¶68

14 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶70

to the occupant / cultivator as per RTC (for the tower corridor area). The name of Revanna is found at Sl.Nos.55, 56 and 58 and the respective compensation awarded for the corridor area covered under the line is also mentioned. Admittedly, the revenue records were not standing in the name of the respondent No.1 on the date

¶71

of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner. Though the respondent No.1 has purchased the lands in question on 09.07.2015 which was much prior to the order of the Deputy Commissioner determining the compensation but as the name of the respondent No.1 does not reflect in the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioner was compelled to determine the compensation in the name of vendors of the respondent No.1. The record further indicates that on 11.05.2020, the respondent No.1 sent a communication to the appellants stating that they have purchased the lands vide sale deed dated 09.07.2015 and the appellants have replied to the respondent No.1 stating that the lands were surveyed on 04.07.2017 and the revenue records indicate

¶72

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶73

that the owners of the lands are Revanna and others.

¶74

Keeping the aforesaid fact in mind, we need to examine the entitlement of compensation of the respondent No.1.

¶75

It would be useful to extract the relevant

¶76

provisions of the Act. Sections 10(d), 16(3) and 16(4) read as under:

¶77

" Section 10 : xxxx

Provided that -

(a) xxxx

(b) xxxx

(c) xxxx

(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.

¶83

Section 16(3): If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the

¶84

16 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶86

District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.

¶87

Section 16(4): If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it."

¶88

It would be useful to refer to the decision of the

¶89

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of POWER GRID

¶90

CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS¹

¶91

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶92

1 (2017) 5 SCC 143

¶93

17 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶95

23. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. The provision of Section 10(b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and that the telegraph authority shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.

¶96

28. These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the District Judge concerned for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated 15-10-2015 in this behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner

¶97

18 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶99

of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines

¶100

30. The appellant in this case also raised the issue of taking prior consent from it, as the owner of the land, before laying electricity transmission lines. This argument has been rejected [Set out in paras 1 to 28, above.] by us while dealing with the appeal of Century Textiles & Industries Limited. Accordingly, this appeal is also dismissed."

¶101

[Emphasis supplied]

¶102

Further, in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA ETC² , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶103

"9. Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be diminution of value of the property over which such line is drawn. The Telegraph Act, 1885 provides for the manner in which the amount of compensation is to be computed therefor. Section 10 of the Act

¶104

2 2007 AIR SCW 4104

¶105

19 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶107

empowers the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, or posts in or upon any immovable property. Section 11 empowers the officers to enter on property in order to repair or remove telegraph lines or posts. Section 12 empowers the authority to grant permission for laying down such lines to a local authority in terms of Clauses (c) and (d) of the proviso to Section 10 of the Act subject to reasonable conditions as it may think fit. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under:

¶108

“16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.—(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.

¶109

(2) If, after the making of an order under sub-section (1), any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 188 of the Penal Code, 1860.

¶110

(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.

¶111

(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested

¶112

20 -

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶114

are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it.

¶115

(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section (3) or subsection (4) shall be final:

¶116

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same.”

¶117

10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.

¶118

[Emphasis supplied]

¶119

21 -

¶120

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶121

In the case of B.H.NARAYANASWAMY AND

¶122

OTHERS Vs. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND

¶123

ANOTHER³ this Court has held as under:

¶124

19. It is appropriate to note here a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.V.S. Ramakrishna S/o Nageswara Rao & Others, v. A.P. Transco Reptd. by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha & Others (SUPRA). The Court has held that Section 164 of 2003 Act read with Section 10 of 1885 Act recognised the absolute power of the AP Transco to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation if any damage is sustained by him by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. In other words, neither the acquisition of the lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the owner or occupier. The Court further held as under:

¶125

“34. It is also relevant to note that since Section 28 or 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are not saved under Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, there is no need to publish a sanctioned scheme nor it is necessary to give any notice by publication in

¶126

3 ILR 2010 KAR 356

¶127

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶128

local news papers as required under Section 29(2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. In spite of the same, the Notification dated 14.7.2008 was published in the A.P. Gazette as well as two local dailies inviting objections from the interested/aggrieved persons and no objections were received from anyone.

¶129

35. In the circumstances, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in any ground whatsoever. Hence, no Mandamus can be issued restraining the respondents from proceeding with the erection of poles and transmission lies through the lands of the petitioners. However, this shall not preclude the petitioners to claim the compensation by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law in case any damage is sustained to their property.”

¶130

[Emphasis supplied]

¶131

16. This Court, in the case of GOVINDARAJU N.

¶132

Vs. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND

¶133

OTHERS⁴ held as under:

¶134

" 4. It cannot be disputed that the provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short 'Act') are applicable to the facts of the present case and the 5^th respondent has issued the notice invoking the provisions of the said Act. Section 10 of the Act provides that the telegraph authority may from time to time place and maintain a telegraph line under,

¶135

4 W.P.Nos.45950-952/2011 dt. 16.12.2011

¶136

23 -

¶137

NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶138

over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property. Proviso (d) to Section 10 of the Act makes it obligatory for the Authority exercising such powers to cause as little damage as possible and that it shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of such powers. Therefore, if the action of the 5^th respondent in drawing the power line results in damage to the crop, the farm house or to the land of the petitioner, then it is obligatory on the part of the 5^th respondent to have the damage assessed and pay the same to the petitioner. The question of acquiring the land by resorting to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act does not arise, as no such provision is made for acquisition of the land only because the telegraph line required to be laid across or through a particular land. In that view of the matter the grievance made by the petitioner in these writ petitions seeking direction for acquisition of the land is not tenable."

¶139

17. Keeping in mind the law on the point and the

¶140

enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the considered view that the contention of the respondent No.1 that the acquisition is required to be quashed, is misconceived.

¶141

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶142

Under Section 10 of the Act referred supra , the appellant is only laying the power line above some portion of the land. Hence, the contention that the lands are acquired by the appellant is misconceived. Insofar as the determination of compensation is concerned, Section 16(3) specifically empowers the owner or occupier of the land to file an application before the District Judge in whose jurisdiction the property is situated for determination of sufficiency of the compensation paid under Section 10 of the Act. In the instant case, though the determination of the compensation by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 09.05.2017 is in the name of Revanna and others, the respondent No.1 is entitled to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court under Section 16(3) and seek for higher compensation pointing out to the Civil Court that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the lands in question. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect and permitted the respondent No.1 to approach the Civil Court under Section 16(3) of the Act.

¶143

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶144

18. The another contention of the learned counsel

¶145

for the respondent No.1 that the respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation for the entire extent of land measuring 5 acres 7 guntas is without any basis as the document at Anneuxre-L indicates that only in some portion of Sy.Nos.14/7, 14/8 and 16/6 the high tension wire has passed. The guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power at Annexure-R3 clearly indicate the manner of determination of compensation and the entitlement. Hence, any finding with regard to the entitlement of the compensation and the area to which the compensation is to be awarded contrary to Annexure-R3 is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. referred supra has made specific observation at para 28 with regard to the guidelines at Annexure-R3. We are of the considered view that the entire exercise of entitlement of compensation is required to be done by the Deputy Commissioner at an initial stage and if the land owner or occupant is

¶146

26 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶147

aggrieved, he has to seek remedy under Section 16(3) of the Act before the competent Civil Court. The contrary submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has no merit and is accordingly, rejected. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the appellants has expressed that they have no objection whatsoever in the respondent No.1 seeking remedy before the Civil Court based on the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.05.2017. In view of the specific stand of the appellants, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met if the respondent No.1 is permitted to approach the Civil Court under Section 16(3) of the Act. On receipt of the such an application from the respondent no.1, the Civil Court shall treat the order dated 09.05.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-R5 as the order passed against the respondent No.1 herein for the purpose of considering the claim of the respondent No.1 under Section 16(3) of the Act.

¶148

27 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶149

The contention of the learned counsel for the

¶150

appellants that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error in directing the appellants to award ad hoc compensation to the entire land, and is contrary to the provision of law and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, need not be gone into in the present appeal as we have already come to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 is required to approach the Civil Court under Section 16(3) of the Act. The Civil Court is the competent Court to consider the claim of the respondent No.1 with regard to the sufficiency of the compensation paid or determined under Section 10(d) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner. The Civil Court is required to consider the claim of the respondent No.1 under Section 16(3) of the Act keeping in mind the provisions of the Act, various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court referred supra and also keeping in mind the guidelines for payment of compensation towards the damage, issued by the Ministry of Power dated 15.10.2015. Hence, we do not propose to record any finding with regard to the

¶151

28 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶152

entitlement of compensation of respondent No.1 in the present proceedings.

¶153

The further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is clear distinction between the acquisition of the land and laying of transmission line over the private land, in our considered view, the issue has been clearly answered by this Court in the case of GOVINDARAJU N. referred supra . In our considered view, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the owner of the land is entitled for just compensation for acquisition under the law, may not be correct. In the instant case, there is no acquisition of land and it is only laying of high tension line over some portion of the land of the respondent No.1.

¶154

We make it clear that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge and this Court should not have any bearing on the Civil Court's adjudication of the claim of the respondent No.1 to be filed under Section 16(3) of the Act. The Civil Court without insisting on the issue of

¶155

29 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶156

limitation, shall consider the claim of the respondent No.1 under Section 16(3) of the Act independently and in accordance with law. We expressly reserve liberty to the respondent No.1 to avail the remedy under Section 16(3) of the Act treating the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.05.2017 as an order passed under Section 10(d) of the Act.

¶157

The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.05.2017, cannot be faulted. Admittedly, as on the relevant date, the revenue records stood in the name of vendors of the respondent No.1. Neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the appellants can be expected to conduct roving enquiry with regard to the title of the land where the high tension line passes. The Deputy Commissioner, based on the survey material and the land revenue records has awarded the ad hoc compensation. It is open for the respondent No.1 to seek relief under Section 16(3) of the Act, based on the order of the Deputy Commissioner, pointing out to the Civil Court that they are

¶158

30 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶159

the owners of the property and they are entitled for higher compensation. It is open for the respondent No.1 to receive the ad hoc compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner in its order dated 09.05.2017 to the lands in question and thereafter they can seek for higher compensation.

¶160

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

¶161

pass the following:

¶162

ORDER

¶163

i) The writ appeal is allowed. ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.9477/2021 (LARES) is set aside.

¶164

iii) The respondent No.1 is granted liberty to file an application under Section 16(3) of the Act before the Competent Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶165

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:6626-DB W.A. No.1203/2022

¶166

iv) The jurisdictional District Judge / Court shall entertain the application to be filed by the respondent No.1 taking note of the pendency of the writ petition and this appeal before this Court and consider and pass orders in

¶167

accordance with law.

¶168

No order as to costs.

¶169

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶170

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶171

RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. M/S Abhishek Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. M/S Abhishek Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu M Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nafeeza Vs State of Karnataka

Chandana M N Vs State of Karnataka

Shree Vaishnavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajiv Gandhi University of Vs Ms. Nusra Anjum S.A.

Ilyas Khan Vs the Competent Authority