District Judge And Not DM 'Appropriate Authority' To Determine Issues Relating To Adequacy Of Compensation U/S 16(3) Telegraph Act: Allahabad HC

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the District Judge is the appropriate authority to determine issues relating to adequacy & sufficiency of compensation and not the District Magistrate.

Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 describes the powers available to the authorities in disputes for compensation. Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act reads as

“(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 situated, be determined by him.”

Case Background

Under the Northern Region System Strengthening Scheme-XXI, for laying a 400 kV Bareilly-Kashipur-Roorkee- Saharanpur D/C (Quad) transmission line, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) chose petitioners' land along with others for laying the transmission lines. The same was done in exercise of PGCIL's powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

According to the petitioners, the project was to start in 2011 and was completed in 2019. Since trees were to be cut for laying down of transmission line, PGCIL sent notices in 2014 to the petitioners and requested the Tehsildar to determine the compensation payable by PGCIL to the petitioners. In 2015, PGCIL issued certain cheques to the petitioners in lieu of the compensation payable.

Certain farmers approached the High Court claiming that they had received lesser compensation than others. The High Court directed them to approach the District Magistrate, Bareilly. Noticing the disparity in payment of compensation, the District Magistrate ordered PGCIL to pay the equal compensation to the farmers in Bareilly and Rampur.

PGCIL filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate which was dismissed on grounds that he had passed an administrative order pursuant to the directions of the High Court. Subsequently, various farmers approached the High Court for decision on their representation regarding compensation for the trees cut for laying down the transmission lines.

While litigation was going on between PGCIL and farmers, the Central Government in in 2015 framed a policy 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.” This policy was implemented and made effective in the State of UP in 2019.

Subsequently, the petitioners approached the District Magistrate claiming damages pursuant to the new policy. Since the representations remained undecided, the petitioners approached the High Court.

High Court Observations

The Court noted that Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act provides that compensation must be provided by the Telegraph Authority to the persons affected while placing and maintaining lines and poles. Section 18 empowers the Magistrate to order removal of trees on application by the Telegraph Authority and to determine compensation for such removal. This award of compensation is treated as final, observed the Court.

Regarding Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, the Court observed that

“Clause(d) of this section further provides that if a dispute arises regarding the sufficiency or adequacy of compensation paid under Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act, then the aggrieved parties may approach the District Judge of the said jurisdiction where the affected property is situated.”

The Court observed that the policy of the Central Government came into effect in the State of UP on November 19, 2019 by which time the laying of lines for the project had already been completed.

In Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., the Apex Court held that the power to determine adequacy of compensation awarded under the Telegraph Act rested with the District Judge and not the District Magistrate.

In Prem Pal v. State of U.P., a division bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Authority was bound to pay compensation under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, and the affected parties could approach the District Judge, in whose jurisdiction the land is situated, with grievance regarding the adequacy of the compensation paid by the Authority.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held the application of the policy of the specific projects undertaken by PGCIL or the farmers who had already received compensation was unclear. It held that the writ Court's indulgence could not be granted for policy decision which were exclusively in the domain of the executive.

Holding that no award was passed under Section 18 but suo moto compensation was granted under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, the Court held that the only remedy available to the petitioners was that of approaching the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Act.

Case Title: Rajendra Prasad And Others vs. District Magistrate, Bareilly And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 118 [WRIT-C NO. 25120 OF 2020]

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 118

Click Here To Read/Download Order