# Rajendra Prasad & Ors v. District Magistrate, Bareilly & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 650
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-02
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 25120 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-prasad-ors-v-district-magistrate-bareilly-anr-53188
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

erection of poles/towers - Electricity Act,
2003, S. 164 - Exercise of powers of
Telegraph Authority - Telegraph Act, 1885,
Sections
10(d),
16(3),
18(2)
-
The
Telegraph Authority is empowered to
place telegraph lines and posts upon any
immovable property. Under Section 10(d)
of the Telegraph Act, the Telegraph
Authority shall pay full compensation to
all persons for any damage sustained by
reason of the exercise of such powers.
Section 16(3) provides that where any
dispute arises as to the adequacy of the
compensation
payable
under
Section
10(d), such dispute shall be determined by
the
District
Judge.
The
Central
Government framed a policy dated 15
October 2015 for awarding compensation
for damages caused to land due to the
erection of poles/towers, in addition to
compensation for trees; the policy was
implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh
on 19 November 2019.

B. The Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited selected villagers' land for the
erection of poles/towers and laying of
transmission lines. Petitioners submitted
representation regarding damages caused
to
their
land
before
the
District
Magistrate. Held : - 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 the adequacy and sufficiency of
compensation. Petitioners relegated to
approach the District Judge for redressal
of their grievances. (Paras 27, 28)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
transferred
the
same
to
Prayagraj
Development Authority. However, in the
counter-affidavit the State has not been
able to indicate any notice under Section 10
(6) of the Ceiling Act having been issued to
the land holder for forceful dispossession
nor any amount having been paid by the
State Government as compensation with
respect to such land. These above facts tilt
the scale in favour of the petitioners and
one has to conclude that even though there
have been laches on the part of the
petitioners, the State has ultimately not ever
been able to show de facto possession.

22. As envisaged in the judgment
of
M/s
A.P.
Electrical
Equipment
Corporation
(Supra),
the
possession
envisaged under Section 3 of the Repeal
Act, is de facto possession and not de jure
possession. Furthermore, mere vesting of
land declared surplus under the Act without
resuming de facto possession is of no
consequence and the land holder is entitled
to the benefit of the Repeal Act.

23. In light of the above ratio, we
are of the view that the factual matrix of the
present case is clearly in favour of the
petitioners as the State has not been able to
indicate in any manner as to how de facto
possession was taken by the State. From
the facts, it is also indicated that in the
Khasra, the name of the petitioners was
present from 2012 till 2016.

24. In light of the above, one
comes to the unequivocal findings that the
State has not been able to bring on record
any document to prove that de facto
possession of the surplus land was taken by
the State before the cut off date as specified
in the Repeal Act. This being the position,
this Court following the dictum in M/s A.P.
Electrical
Equipment
Corporation
(Supra),
exercising
its
discretionary
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, is duty bound to hold
in favour of the petitioners.

25.
The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, allowed. Consequential reliefs
to follow. The authorities are directed to
carry out changes in the revenue records in
favour of the petitioners within a period of
eight weeks from date.

26. This Court would like to thank
and appreciate Ms. Saumya Patel and Mr.
Ashutosh Srivastava, Research Associates,
who have assisted this Court in carrying out
the extensive research and analysis. This
Court would also like to show the
appreciation towards the counsel who have
appeared and diligently argued in this
matter on behalf of their clients.

Civil
Misc.
Correction
Application No.21 of 2025

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel appearing for the applicant
and
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State

The present correction application
has been filed for correction in the order
dated April 2, 2025.

For the reasons stated in the
correction application, the same is allowed.

In the order dated April 2, 2025,
name of Sri Suresh Kumar Shukla be also
read as counsel appearing for the petitioner.

This order be treated as part and
parcel of the order dated April 2, 2025.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 650
4 All. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Bareily & Anr.
651
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ - C No. 25120 of 2020

Rajendra Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate, Bareilly & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Udit Chandra, Sri Subodh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Prateek J. Nagar, Sri J. Nagar
(Sr. Advocate)

A. Compensation for damages due to
erection of poles/towers - Electricity Act,
2003, S. 164 - Exercise of powers of
Telegraph Authority - Telegraph Act, 1885,
Sections
10(d),
16(3),
18(2)
-
The
Telegraph Authority is empowered to
place telegraph lines and posts upon any
immovable property. Under Section 10(d)
of the Telegraph Act, the Telegraph
Authority shall pay full compensation to
all persons for any damage sustained by
reason of the exercise of such powers.
Section 16(3) provides that where any
dispute arises as to the adequacy of the
compensation
payable
under
Section
10(d), such dispute shall be determined by
the
District
Judge.
The
Central
Government framed a policy dated 15
October 2015 for awarding compensation
for damages caused to land due to the
erection of poles/towers, in addition to
compensation for trees; the policy was
implemented in the State of Uttar Pradesh
on 19 November 2019.

B. The Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited selected villagers' land for the
erection of poles/towers and laying of
transmission lines. Petitioners submitted
representation regarding damages caused
to
their
land
before
the
District
Magistrate. Held : - 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 the adequacy and sufficiency of
compensation. Petitioners relegated to
approach the District Judge for redressal
of their grievances. (Paras 27, 28)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
petitioners are praying for the issuance of a
writ of mandamus commanding and
directing the District Magistrate, Bareilly
(hereinafter referred to as 'respondent
no.1') to decide their representation dated
September 30, 2020.

FACTS

2. Factual matrix of the instant writ
petition is delineated below:

a) The petitioners are small-scale
farmers who own agricultural land in
District Bareilly. A scheme for Northern
Region System Strengthening Scheme-XXI
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') for
laying
a
400
kV
Bareilly-KashipurRoorkee-Saharanpur
D/C
(Quad)
transmission line was approved by the
Ministry of Power, Government of India,
under its authority granted by Section 68 of
the Electricity Act, 2003, vide notification
dated November 16, 2009.

b)
In
pursuance
of
this
notification, the Power Grid Corporation of
India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the
'PGCIL'),
an
undertaking
of
the
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government of India, was granted authority
for the project. In exercise of its powers
under Section 164 of the Electricity Act,
2003 read with Section 10 of the Telegraph
Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as
'Telegraph Act'), selected the petitioners'
land alongwith some other villagers for the
erection of poles/towers and laying down
transmission lines for execution of the
scheme. The project was supposedly started
in the year 2011 and was completed in
2019 as contended by petitioners.

c)
In
2014,
PGCIL
issued
separate
notices
to
the
respective
petitioners under Section 42 of the
Electricity Supply Act, 1948 read with Part
III of the Telegraph Act, regarding the
cutting of trees for laying down of
transmission lines within 30 days of receipt
of the notice. PGCIL also requested the
Tehsildar
or
concerned
government
department to determine the compensation
for Right of Way (RoW) arising from
laying down of the transmission line, which
was to be paid by PGCIL. A copy of the
aforementioned notice was also forwarded
to the Tehsildar and the Additional District
Magistrate
for
determination
of
compensation.

d) Subsequently, in 2015, PGCIL
issued separate cheques of varying amounts
to the petitioners as compensation.

e)
Meanwhile,
some
other
farmers from the same district filed writ
petition no. 26594 of 2016 (Dharam Pal v.
State of U.P.), alleging that they have
received less compensation compared to
the farmers in adjacent District of Rampur.
This writ petition, being premature, was
disposed of vide order dated May 30, 2016,
with a direction to petitioners to approach
respondent no.1 for the determination of
compensation for both land as well as trees.

f)
In
compliance
of
the
aforementioned order, respondent no.1
passed an order dated July 13, 2016
observing
disparity
in
compensation
between the farmers in District Rampur and
Bareilly.
Consequently,
PGCIL
was
directed to
provide
compensation
to
farmers in Bareilly at par with those in
Rampur. This order was further modified
on September 3, 2016, extending its
applicability to all farmers impleaded in
writ petition no. 26594 of 2016.

g) PGCIL challenged the orders
dated July 13, 2016 and September 3, 2016
passed by respondent no.1 before this Court
through writ petition no. 3679 of 2017
(Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v.
D.M., Bareilly and Others) on the ground
that the District Magistrate was not the
competent
authority
to
enhance
the
compensation, as such power vests with the
District Judge. The said writ petition was
dismissed vide order dated September 5,
2018, with the observation that the
impugned
order
was
passed
in
an
administrative capacity pursuant to the
direction of the High Court and did not
constitute
quasi-judicial
orders
under
Section 18 of the Telegraph Act.

h) Ultimately, PGCIL accepted
the order passed by respondent no.1 and
accordingly paid compensation to the
farmers
who
had
contested
the
aformentioned writ petition.

i) The petitioners in the present
writ petition, after getting knowledge of the
compensation awarded to those other
farmers who were petitioners in writ
petition no. 3679 of 2017, submitted
representations dated October 10, 2018 and
January 1, 2020, before the respondent no.1
seeking compensation for cutting of trees
on their respective lands.

j) Since the representations dated
October 10, 2018, and January 1, 2020,
were not decided by respondent no.1,
several petitioners filed individual writ
4 All. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Bareily & Anr.
653
petitions, including writ petition no. 37675
of 2018, 37407 of 2018, 37675 of 2018,
38594 of 2018, 37780 of 2018 and 12576
of 2020, seeking a writ of mandamus from
this
Court
in
order
to
get
their
representations decided. Except for the
present petition, all other writ petitions
pertain solely to compensation for trees.

k) During the pendency of
aforementioned writ petitions, a Coordinate
Bench of this Court disposed of Writ C No.
37675 of 2018 vide order dated March 29,
2019, observing that the parties should be
relegated
to
approach
the
District
Magistrate, who would decide the claim
based on the report submitted by the
committee constituted as per the said order.

l) PGCIL filed a review petition
against the aforementioned writ petition,
which was dismissed vide order dated
August 26, 2019. Meanwhile, respondent
no.1 decided the representation vide order
dated June 14, 2019, in compliance of the
direction issued to him.

m) PGCIL challenged the order
dated June 14, 2019, before this Court
through writ petition no. 21207 of 2019
(Power Grid Corporation v. State of U.P.),
on the ground that the District Magistrate
has
no
locus
to
decide
the
said
representation. However, the writ petition
was dismissed vide order dated November
7, 2019.

n) The petitioners whose writ
petitions had been decided were given
compensation by the PGCIL, while those,
whose writ petitions are still pending
before the Court are waiting for the
disbursement of their compensation.

o)
Meanwhile,
the
Central
Government pursuant to the order of the
National Green Tribunal, 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.

p) The aforementioned policy
was implemented in the State of Uttar
Pradesh on November 19, 2019. It was
made effective at the request of PGCIL to
the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, vide
letter dated June 20, 2019.

q) The petitioners, through their
counsel, submitted a representation on
September 30, 2020, regarding damages
caused to their land in view of the policy
framed
by
the
Central
Government.
However, the District Magistrate has not
acted upon it, thereby violating their
fundamental rights under Articles 21 and
300A of the Constitution of India.

r) Since the representation dated
September 30, 2020, seeking compensation
under the policy remained undecided by the
respondent no.1, the petitioners have filed
the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
PETITIONERS

3. Mr. Udit Chandra appearing on
behalf of all the petitioners has made the
following submissions:

a) The present writ petition is on
a fresh cause of action and not barred by
constructive
res-judicata.
Earlier
writ
petitions were filed by the petitioners to
decide the representation with regard to
compensation for damages caused to trees
and the same was decided under Section 18
(2) of the Telegraph Act.

b) The notices which were issued
to the petitioners were only with respect to
determine
compensation
regarding
damages caused to the trees and not for
damages caused to the land by erecting
electric poles/towers. There was no specific
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice with regard to the acquisition of land
for
laying
of
electric
poles/towers,
therefore the present proceedings are
different
proceedings
arising
out
of
different causes of action. Hence, the
doctrine of constructive res-judicata will
not be applicable in the present situation.

c) The compensation which has
been decided and paid earlier by the
respondent no.1 was only with respect to
the cutting of trees under Section 18 (2) of
the
Telegraph
Act
whereas
no
compensation of any kind has been given
for damages caused to the land by the
erection of electric poles/towers which
ought to have been assessed by the District
Magistrate under Section 10 (d) of the
Telegraph Act.

d) Petitioners are entitled to
receive compensation as per the Central
Government policy dated October 15, 2015
whereby farmers are entitled to receive
80% of the land value for the tower base in
addition to damages done to crops or trees.
Petitioners received the compensation with
regard to damages caused to the trees and
are not disputing that but have not received
the compensation with regard to damages
caused to the land. The present issue is to
claim compensation with regard to the land
as
per
the
policy
framed
by
the
Government.

e) To buttress the arguments
counsels for the petitioners have placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Apex
Court in Kukreja Construction Co. v.
State of Maharashtra reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2547 wherein twin
pivotal holdings were delivered. First, it
affirmed that once developers have attained
vested
development
rights-such
as
additional Floor Space Index (FSI) or
Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
via
Development
Rights
Certificates
(DRC)-these
rights
cannot
be
retroactively nullified by later amendments.
Second,
the
Court
held
that
once
compensation for land acquisition is
determined,
it
becomes
immediately
payable by the State without any further
requirement for representation, and any
delay
would
breach
constitutional
obligations under Article 300-A.

f) The counsel further relied upon
a judgment of the Apex Court in Kolkata
Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 wherein the
Court emphasized that any acquisition must
adhere to a set of minimum procedural
safeguards consisting of seven sub-rights,
which are inherent in the constitutional
guarantee under Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India, thereby ensuring that
property is not deprived except by proper
legal authority.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
RESPONDENTS

4. Mr. J. Nagar, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Prateek J. Nagar learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the PGCIL
has made the following submissions:

a) The present writ petition is
legally not maintainable intrinsically on
three grounds. The first one is that the
present writ petition is the second writ
petition on the same cause of action and
therefore barred by the principles of
constructive res-judicata under Explanation
IV to Section 11 CPC and Order II, Rule 2
of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
 b) The petitioners had earlier
filed writ petition no. 37407 of 2018
seeking similar reliefs. The said writ
petition was disposed of by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court on September 13,
2019, directing the District Magistrate to
examine their claim by constituting a three-
4 All. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Bareily & Anr.
655
member committee. The petitioners had an
opportunity to claim the present relief in
their previous writ but they defaulted to do
so, therefore they are barred from raising
the same issue by filing another writ
petition.

c) Purported policy dated October
15, 2015 was in existence and was well
known to the petitioners at the time of
filing aforesaid writ petition but still
petitioners failed to claim the reliefs in that
writ petition.

d)
The
project
work
was
completed in the year 2015 and the
different
petitioners
received
varying
cheques from the PGCIL in the year 2015,
based on the evaluation of trees as
contemplated by the Conservator of Forest,
Moradabad, when district authorities had
kept silent for a very long time with respect
to determining compensation. The cheques
so received have been aptly acquiesced to
and also duly encashed by the petitioners.
Therefore they are barred from approaching
the Court due to the principle of estoppel.

e)
The
Supreme
Court
in
Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay
v. T.P. Kumaran reported in (1996) 10
SCC 561, has held that a subsequent claim
on the same cause of action is barred.

f) The second ground is that the
policy upon which the petitioner relied on
was framed in the year 2015 and the cutting
of trees and erection of electric poles on the
land of the petitioners had already been
done in the year 2013-14 and at that time
compensation were given as per the
valuation
of trees,
assessed
by
the
Conservator of Forest, Moradabad, and
compensation was paid to all affected
parties. Consequently, policy which came
later on has no retrospective effect on the
cause of action which arose much before.

g)
The
petitioners
have
approached the District Magistrate via
representation dated September 30, 2020
and thereafter filed the present writ
petition, after an inordinate delay of more
than three years. Hence, making their claim
barred by limitation and laches.
 h) The Supreme Court in Kerala
State
Electricity
Board
v.
T.P.
Kunhaliumma reported in (1976) 4 SCC
634, has held that the limitation period of
three years (Article 137 of the Limitation
Act, 1963) applies to proceedings under the
Telegraph Act.

i) The third ground is that the
present writ petition is not maintainable as
the petitioners have an alternative statutory
remedy under Section 16 (3) of the
Telegraph
Act,
which
provides
for
adjudication of compensation disputes
before
the
District
Judge
upon
dissatisfaction of compensation received
under Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act.

j) The Supreme Court in Power
Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.
reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 has
categorically
held
that
any
dispute
regarding
compensation
must
be
adjudicated by the District Judge and not
the District Magistrate. The petitioners,
having accepted compensation without
protest, cannot now challenge the same
through a writ petition.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

5. We have considered the rival
submissions and have perused the materials
placed on record. Before proceeding to the
rival contention canvassed by both the
sides, we must look into Sections 10 (d), 16
(3) and 18 (2) of the Telegraph Act, which
are quoted below:

"10.
Power
for
telegraph
authority to place and maintain telegraph
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lines and posts.-The telegraph authority
may, from time to time, place and maintain
a telegraph line under, over, along or
across, and posts in or upon, any
immovable property:

Provided that-

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) ...

(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."
***

"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) ...

(2) ...

(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.
***

"18.
Removal
of
trees
interrupting telegraphic communication.-

 (1) ...
 (2)
When
disposing
of
an
application under sub-section (1), the
Magistrate shall, in the case of any tree in
existence before the telegraph line was
placed, award to the persons interested in
the tree such compensation as he thinks
reasonable, and the award shall be final."
6. The counsel appearing on behalf
of
the
petitioners
submits
that
a
representation dated September 30, 2020,
has
been
filed
before
the
District
Magistrate in view of the policy dated
October 15, 2015. This representation is
wholly based on different causes of action
arising from the erection of electric
poles/towers on the land. The right to claim
compensation for the land arose subsequent
to implementation of the policy dated
October
15,
2015,
which
mandates
compensation for damages caused to the
land in addition to compensation for
damages to trees. Moreover, in all the
previous writ petitions, the petitioners'
representations were decided under Section
18 (2) of the Telegraph Act, under which
compensation was awarded specifically for
trees.

7. The counsel for the petitioners
further argued that the petitioners cannot
file representation under Section 16 (3) of
the Telegraph Act, as this is an appellate
provision that pertains to the sufficiency of
compensation rather than an initial claim
for damages. There has to be an original
order to be appealed against with regard to
compensation for damages caused to land
in order to approach the District Judge
under Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act.
Therefore, the petitioners have very well
filed their representations before the
District Magistrate in view of the policy
and not before the District Judge.

8.
Per
contra,
Senior
Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents
while debunking the arguments of the
petitioners,
submits
that
previously
compensation was provided by PGCIL to
the petitioners. Therefore, the present
representation should be filed before the
District Judge as per Section 16 (3) of the
4 All. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Bareily & Anr.
657
Telegraph Act, as it pertains to the
enhancement of compensation that was
previously granted
by
PGCIL
under
Section 10 (d) of the Telegraph Act.
Furthermore, the petitioners had duly
accepted the earlier compensation without
any protest.

9. The learned counsel for the
respondents further submits that the policy
on which petitioners are relying cannot be
applied
retrospectively,
as
it
was
introduced after the trees were cut and the
towers were erected.

10. Section 10 of the Telegraph Act
empowers the Telegraph Authority to place
and maintain lines and posts. Clause(d) of
this provision acts as a check and balance
on the powers granted to the Telegraph
Authority, ensuring that compensation is
provided to affected individuals while
exercising these powers.

11. Section 18 (2) of the Telegraph
Act provides for the removal of trees that
interrupt
telegraphic
communication.
Under this provision, a Magistrate of the
first or second class is empowered to order
the removal of trees obstructing telegraphic
communication upon an application by the
Telegraph Authority. The Magistrate is also
responsible for determining and awarding
compensation for the removed trees and
such an award is deemed final.

12. Section 16 of the Telegraph Act,
addresses disputes arising from the exercise
of powers granted to the Telegraph
Authority
under
Section
10
of
the
Telegraph Act. According to this provision,
if there is any resistance or obstruction, the
District Magistrate may, at his discretion,
permit the Telegraph Authority to proceed
with its operations. 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.

13. Upon examining the policy, this
court observed that albeit it was framed on
October 15, 2015, it was made effective
only after a request letter dated June 20,
2019, written by PGCIL to Chief Secretary,
U.P., Lucknow. This was followed by a
subsequent implementation letter dated
November 19, 2019, issued by the Chief
Secretary, U.P., Lucknow to all the District
Magistrates.

14. The letter dated June 20, 2019
written by PGCIL to Chief Secretary, U.P,
Lucknow is quoted below:

"To,

The
Chief
Secretary,
Uttar
Pradesh Government, Lucknow-226001

Subject: Implementation of the
direction from Ministry of Energy, GD,
regarding payment of compensation to the
farmer and owners for construction of
transmission lines in Uttar Pradesh.

Sir,

Please refer to the letter No.
2023/chaubis/P-3-2018 dated 06.09.2018
(Copy enclosed) addressed to MD, UPPCL
Shakti
Bhawan
Lucknow,
regarding
implementation of the direction from
Ministry of Energy, GOI, for payment of
compensation with immediate effect to the
farmers land owners for construction of
UPPCL
transmission
lines.
As
per
direction, in the above referred letter, cost
of 85% tower base land area to be
compensated to the farmers/ land owners.
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The calculation of the compensation
amount shall be made by the respective
District Magistrate based on the circle
rates.

It is humbly prayed to issued
necessary
direction
to
the
revenue
department for issuance of guidelines in
line with above referred letter to district
magistrates
regarding
payment
of
compensation to the farmers/land owners
for construction of transmission lines by
POWERGRID/other agencies in the state of
UP."

15. The letter for the implementation
of the policy dated November 19, 2019
written by Chief Secretary, U.P., Lucknow
to all the District Magistrate is quoted
below:

"सेवा में,

समस्त धजलाधिकािी,

उति पदेश।

ऊजाटअन र्ाग-3 / लखनऊ: धदनाांक 19 नवम्िि,
2019

धवषय- पावि धग्रड कािपोिेशन आफ इधण्डया धल० के
अन्तगटत धनधमटत होने वाली 765/400/220/132 के०वी०
पािेषर् लाइनों में लगाये जाने वाले धवधर्न्न कृषकों / र्ूस्वाधमयों को
र्ूधम म आवजे सम्िन्िी धदये जाने वाले क्षधतपूधतट को र्ाित सिकाि
के ऊजाट मन्त्रालय के धदशा-धनदेशों के अन रूप अांगीकृत किने के
सम्िन्ि में।

महोदय,

उपय टक्त धवषय के सम्िन्ि में अवगत किाना है धक
ऊजाट अन र्ाग-3 के शासनादेश सांख्या-2023/24-पी-32018 धदनाांक 06 धसतम्िि, 2018 द्वािा उति प्रदेश पावि
राांसधमशन कािपोिेशन धल० के अन्तगटत धनधमटत होने वाली
765/400/220/132 के०वी० पािेषर् लाईनों में लगाये जाने
वाले धवधर्न्न कृषकों/र्ूस्वाधमयों को र्ूधम म आवजे सांिांिी धदये जाने
वलो क्षधतपूधतट को र्ाित सिकाि के ऊजाट मन्त्रालय के धदशा-धनदेशों
के अन रूप उ०प्र० पा०र्ा०का०धल० के अन्तगटत धनमाटर् होने वाली
धवधर्न्न धवर्व की लाइनों में वतटमान क्षधतपूधतट के अधतरिक्त Land
Compensation के पद से र्ावि िेस के नीचे 85 प्रधतशत
क्षेत्रफल र्ूधम की लागत के रूप में अधतरिक्त क्षधतपूधतट अन मन्य धकये
जाने का प्राधविान धकया गया है।

2. इस सम्िन्ि में उक्त शासनादेश धदनाांक06.09.2018 एवां अधिशासी, धनदेशक, पावि धग्रड कािपोिेशन
आफ इधण्डया धल० के पत्र सांख्या-पावि धग्रड/एनआि-3/पीईएसए /
17684 धदनाांक-20.06.2019 की प्रधत प्रेधषत किते हुये म झे
यह कहने का धनदेश हुआ है धकl ऊजाट धवर्ाग की उपिोक्त व्यवस्था
उति प्रदेश में पावि धग्रड कािपोिेशन ऑफ इधण्डया धल० के द्वािा
स्थाधपत की जाने वाली पािेषर् लाईनों पि र्ी लागू किने के धलये
पावि धग्रड कािपोिेशन ऑफ इधण्डया धल० के अन िोि पि अन्तगटत
आवश्यक कायटवाही की जाय।

3. उक्त आदेश िाजस्व धवर्ाग की सहमधत से धनगटत
धकये जा िहे हैं।"

16. The policy of 2015 came into
effect on November 19, 2019, following a
request letter from PGCIL to the Chief
Secretary on June 20, 2019. In the letter,
PGCIL sought parity with UPPCL for the
issuance
of
guidelines
regarding
implementation of compensation for land,
in addition to compensation for trees, by
the Ministry of Energy. The letter directed
the policy to be implemented 'with
immediate effect' for the UPPCL.

17. The phrase 'immediate effect'
means the policy takes effect instantly or
from a specified time. Therefore, the policy
became effective immediately from the
date
of
its
implementation
that
is
November 19, 2019.

18. It is pertinent to note that the
project work has already been completed
by this time. According to the petitioners,
the project was completed in 2016 whereas
the respondents claim it was completed in
2019. However, there is no dispute
regarding the fact that the work has been
completed.

19. The objective of the policy that has
been framed earlier and implemented later
4 All. Rajendra Prasad & Ors. Vs. District Magistrate, Bareily & Anr.
659
was evidently to address the concerns of
farmers whose trees were cut and whose
lands were utilized for erecting towers.
This suggests that the policy could be
applied retrospectively to project work that
had already been executed by the PGCIL.
While PGCIL undertakes various projects
across India, the policy does not specify the
particular project work to which it applies.

20. The Supreme Court in Power
Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (Supra)
has held that Power Grid, as a Central
Transmission Utility and deemed licensee
under the Electricity Act, 2003, possesses
powers akin to those of a Telegraph
Authority under the Telegraph Act. This
includes the authority to place and maintain
transmission lines over private land without
the
owner's
consent
and
provide
compensation for any damages incurred in
exercise of those powers. The Court
emphasized that such powers are essential
to ensure the development of infrastructure
projects serving the public interest, such as
electricity transmission, and that individual
property
rights
may
be
subject
to
reasonable restrictions to achieve these
objectives.
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 relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"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 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."

"29.This appeal is filed by
Power Grid in the case of Ram Naresh
Singh. In this case, transmission lines are
in District Sasaram in the State of Bihar.
The complete work for laying down the
transmission lines where 524 overhead
towers have been erected by the Power
Grid. Out of these, only 1 tower is
located at the land belonging to Ram
Naresh Singh. The dispute raised is with
regard to quantum of compensation and
as per the provisions of Section 16 of the
Telegraph Act, 1885, it is to be settled by
the District Judge. Thus, for all the
reasons [ Set out in paras 1 to 28,
above.] given above in the case of
Century Textiles & Industries Limited,
this appeal of the Power Grid stands
allowed and the judgment [Power Grid
Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Ram Naresh
Singh, 2011 SCC OnLine Pat 603 : AIR
2011 Pat 83] of the High Court is set
aside."

21. The Division Bench of this Court
in Prem Pal v. State of U.P. reported in
2011 SCC OnLine All 370 has specifically
held that authority is constraint to pay
compensation for any damages accrued
from their act while executing the work and
upon dissatisfaction with compensation,
parties may approach District Judge for
redressal of issue. The relevant paragraphs
of the judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"It will, thus, be apparent that the
Authority
under
Section
10
of
the
Telegraph Act is bound to pay full
compensation to all persons interested for
any damage sustained by them, by reason
of using the land or putting up any
structure on the land thereby causing waste
or damage. It is also provided that if a
person is dissatisfied with compensation,
such person may approach the District
Judge
within
whose
jurisdiction
the
property is situate, who will then decide the
sufficiency of the compensation."
***

"A licensee under Section 2(39)
of the Electricity Act, is a person who has
been granted a licence under Section 14 of
the said Act. Section 14 confers power on
the Appropriate Commission to grant a
licence to any person to transmit electricity
as a transmission licensee, or to distribute
electricity as a distribution licensee, or to
undertake trading in electricity as an
electricity trader, in any area specified in
the licence. The expression 'licensee',
therefore, is a wide term, which can include
various kinds of licensees. Normally, the
compensation will have to be determined in
terms of the Licensees Rules. In those cases
where, under Section 164 of the Electricity
Act, the powers of Part III of the Telegraph
Act have been conferred on a licensee, then
in that class of cases, the compensation
determined would not be under the
Electricity Act or the Rules framed
thereunder but under the provisions of the
Telegraph Act. A construction of the
provisions in this manner would lead to
harmonious construction and will not result
in conflict of exercise of jurisdiction under
the Electricity Act on one hand and the
Telegraph Act on the other. Under Section
10 of the Telegraph Act, the compensation
is to be determined not by the District
Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police
but by the licensee itself, in the instant
case, the Power Grid Corporation. The
Power Grid Corporation, in the instant
case, has determined the compensation.
The petitioner was given a cheque which he
had accepted on 15.01.2011. In our
opinion, therefore, the remedy to the
petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the
insufficiency
or
inadequacy
of
the
compensation, will be to apply before the
District Judge within whose jurisdiction the
land is situated, for enhancement of
compensation or the like, which he is
entitled to."
***

"That, there is a power to locate
a tower over the land possessed by private
individuals and such individual would be
entitled for the compensation for the
damage sustained by him, was upheld by a
Division Bench of this Court in Janardan
Pandey v. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 41411 of 2007 decided on 5th
September, 2007.

Considering
the
above
discussion, this petition is disposed of, by
directing the petitioner to apply, if not
already applied, to the District Judge
having jurisdiction for enhancement of
compensation, and if such an application is
made,
the
District
Judge
having
jurisdiction to proceed to determine the
compensation in accordance with law and
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible."

CONCLUSION

22. From the bare reading of the
implementation letter, it appears that the
wordings
of
the
policy
is
slightly
ambiguous. The letter neither clearly
specifies whether it applies to claimants
whose land had already been acquired
before the policy came into effect nor
4 All. Sri Krishna & Anr. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
661
explicitly states its applicability to specific
projects undertaken by PGCIL. Moreover,
ambiguity remains as to whether the policy
extends to the farmers who have already
received compensation from PGCIL but are
dissatisfied with the amount paid to them.

23. At the outset, this Court deems it
necessary to clarify that 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.

24. In the present case, the compensation
granted earlier by PGCIL was based on a
report of Conservator of Forests, Moradabad
as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondents. However, no supporting record
has been annexed. Furthermore, before
disbursing the compensation, no formal award
was passed by the District Judge for the same.

25. 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.

26. Thus, the contention of the petitioner
that the earlier compensation was granted
under Section 18 (2) of the Telegraph Act is
categorically rebuffed by this Court, as no
award was passed by the Magistrate.
Consequently, the only remedy available to
the petitioners, for their grievances in case they
are aggrieved by the compensation or want to
aggrandize the same which has been granted
earlier by the Telegraph Authority, is to
approach the District Judge under Section 16
(3) of the Telegraph Act by filing an
appropriate application.

27. 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.

28. Accordingly, the present writ petition
is disposed of 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.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 661
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 28104 of 2024
With
Writ C No. 33280 of 2024
With
Writ C No. 33439 of 2024

Sri Krishna & Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Suresh Singh