Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (Aug. 19) recommended to the Union Government to consider introducing a statutory appeal against the compesnation awarded by the District Judge under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for land used to lay down power transmission lines.

The dispute concerned damages arising from the erection of transmission towers and overhead lines, where compensation is governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Under the Act, such disputes are adjudicated by District Judges, whose orders are deemed 'final,' with no statutory right of appeal. The Court noted this legislative gap, as the absence of an appellate remedy compels parties to invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, where the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence. To address this vacuum, the Court directed the Union Government to consider introducing a statutory appeal mechanism against compensation awards by District Judges, rather than relegating parties solely to writ proceedings.

“In the aforesaid background, 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 court said.

The Court also set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment, which justified uniform compensation to the land owners whose lands were used for the Right of Way (ROW) by a 400 KV power transmission line in Haryana.

The bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal heard the batch of appeals arising out of disputes over damages caused by the erection of transmission towers and overhead lines, which affected land across Sonepat and Jhajjar Districts of Haryana.

The Appellants challenged the High Court's decision on the note that while determining the compensation, the High Court erred in treating diverse lands identically, relying on the collector's rate for one village (Rai, Sonepat) and applying it across the entire 100 km stretch.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bindal observed:

In light of the aforesaid, the Court set aside the High Court's decision and directed it to re-hear the Appellant's case according to the law.

Further, the Court directed the Registry to forthwith send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to examine the issue regarding the remedy of statutory appeal and take appropriate steps.

Notably, the same bench a few days back in another matter recommended the formation of an expert committee as an Appellant Body to hear appeals against orders of the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP), constituted under the Major Ports Trusts Act, 1961 for tariff determination, in place of the current practice of filing appeals directly before the Supreme Court.

Need For Uniformity In Nomenclature Of Case Brought Under Indian Telegraph Act and Petroleum Act

The Court also directed a copy of this judgment to be sent to High Court's Chief Justice to address the issue of different nomenclature being used in different districts of Haryana when a compensation case under the Indian Telegraph Act and Petroleum Act was filed.

"Section 16(3) of 1885 Act, provides that an application can be filed before the District Judge in case of a dispute related to compensation. In district Sonepat, such an application was registered and numbered as a Civil Suit where a judgment and decree has been passed. Whereas in district Jhajjar, the same was registered as a Civil Miscellaneous Application and only judgment has been passed. There is 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.", the court said.

Cause Title: KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) VERSUS VINOD AND ORS. ETC. (and connected cases)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 816

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Sunil Mittal, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Sagar, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jimut Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR Mr. Karan Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshat Jain, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rn Mahlawat, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Saini, Adv.