Summary
In appeals about compensation to landowners for erection of transmission towers and drawing of 400 KV power lines over about 100 km across four Haryana districts, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's common judgment, which had awarded uniform compensation at 85% of the Sonepat collector rate for the tower-base area and 15% of land value for the right-of-way corridor on the strength of the Ministry of Power guidelines of 2015. The High Court had wrongly treated petitions against trial-court decrees as original proceedings, relied on material relating to one district only, and applied a uniform rate to a corridor of vastly differing lands. The matters were remitted, and the Court flagged the absence of any appellate remedy and of timelines under Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for examination by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Law and Justice.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's assessment of uniform compensation for the tower-base area and the right-of-way corridor, based on the Sonepat collector rate and the Ministry of Power guidelines dated 15.10.2015, was legally sustainable for land spread across different districts and villages.
- Whether the Ministry of Power guidelines of 15.10.2015 could govern compensation for a transmission line notified in 2010, and whether administrative instructions can control the judicial power of the court.
- Whether, in exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 over District Judge determinations under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, the High Court could record findings on the basis of pleadings as if hearing an original writ petition.
- Whether the scheme of Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which provides no appeal against the District Judge's determination and no timelines, calls for legislative examination.
Provisions considered
- Section 10, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885Section 10 empowers the telegraph authority to place and maintain lines and posts on immovable property; proviso (b) limits the right acquired to a right of user only, and proviso (d) requires the authority to do as little damage as possible and to pay full compensation for damage sustained. Applied to transmission lines through the Electricity Act, only a right of way is taken and ownership of the land is not transferred, so compensation is for the user and damage, assessed on evidence. (¶¶ 9, 22, 23, 29, 30.1, 31)
- Section 16(3), (4) and (5), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885Section 16(3) provides for determination by the District Judge of disputes about sufficiency of compensation under Section 10(d), Section 16(4) for disputes about entitlement to receive it, and Section 16(5) makes such determinations final. The Court noted that the Act provides no appeal, no limitation period for the application, no timeline for payment and no rate of interest, leaving only judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, in which findings of fact are normally not disturbed and evidence is not re-appreciated. (¶¶ 23.1, 23.2, 23.3, 23.4, 29, 30.1, 33, 35, 36)
- Section 164, Electricity Act, 2003There being no independent provision in the Electricity Act for taking a right of way, the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 are adopted for erection of towers and drawing of power lines by virtue of Section 164. (¶ 22)
- Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of IndiaBecause no appeal lies against a District Judge's determination under Section 16(3), parties invoked the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction, where interference is confined to the parameters of judicial review. The High Court erred in treating the petitions, which challenged trial-court judgments rendered on evidence, as original writ petitions and in recording findings merely because pleadings were not denied; the Court observed that such a remedy, in which evidence may not be re-appreciated, may prove illusory. (¶¶ 5.1, 12, 15, 23.4, 27, 33)
- Section 7-B, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885Section 7-B(2) attaches finality to an arbitrator's award; following M.L. Jaggi, the only remedy against such an award is judicial review by writ petition, in which the High Court does not sit in appeal but examines correctness and legality within the limited confines of judicial review. (¶ 24)
Held
- The High Court's common judgment was vitiated on its face: it decided cases concerning land in two different districts (Sonepat and Jhajjar) by referring to material relating to Sonepat alone, and it dealt with petitions under Articles 226 and 227, which challenged trial-court judgments delivered on appreciation of evidence, as if they were original writ petitions, recording findings merely on the footing that pleadings in the High Court had not been denied and relying on a collector rate and award that were not part of the formal evidence. (¶¶ 11, 12, 15, 19)
- Landowners whose land is used for a right of way for high-tension lines and towers are entitled to adequate compensation, but its assessment depends on evidence of land value for each area. A belt of land running 100 km through different districts and villages with vastly different characteristics (proximity to highways or abadi, or purely agricultural land without road connectivity) cannot be valued at a uniform rate derived from the locational advantage of one parcel near the G.T. Road; the correct method is first to assess the value of the land and then determine the compensation payable. (¶¶ 15, 16, 16.1, 19, 26)
- Following Kerala SEB v. Livisha, there is no fixed formula for compensation for telegraph and electrical lines; each case must be decided on its own merits, and the situs of the land, the distance of the high-voltage line, the extent of the line, whether it passes over a small tract or through the middle of the land, and the value of the land are determinative factors. (¶ 17)
- Reliance on the Ministry of Power guidelines dated 15.10.2015 was doubtful: the public notice of 2010, the notices to landowners of 2011 and the Section 16(3) applications of 2012 all preceded the guidelines, the guidelines themselves left adoption to the States, and the 15% figure for the right-of-way corridor is expressed as a maximum. Whether administrative instructions can control the judicial power of the court is a question that needs to be addressed. (¶ 18)
- Section 16(5) makes the District Judge's determination final with no appeal, and the Act provides no limitation period for a Section 16(3) application, no timeline for payment of compensation and no rate of interest for delay, unlike the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the 2013 Act, the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Railways Act, 1989, which provide appeals or arbitration with appellate remedies. Since determining compensation requires evidence, a remedy confined to judicial review may be illusory. The Court requested the Law Commission and the Ministry of Law and Justice to examine whether a statutory appeal should be provided against orders under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the 1885 Act, the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and similar statutes. (¶¶ 23.4, 28, 29, 30, 30.1, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
- Uniformity is needed in the nomenclature of proceedings under Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act and under the 1962 Petroleum Act, which were registered as a civil suit with a decree in one district but as a civil miscellaneous application in another. (¶ 36)
- The Jhajjar trial court's order on remand was erroneous on its face, referring to exhibits as sale deeds that were not so marked and giving no discernible basis for the compensation assessed, an aspect the High Court failed to notice. (¶ 7.1)
Result
Appeals disposed of; High Court judgment dated 24.02.2023 set aside; matters remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a request to take them up expeditiously; copy of the order to be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for steps on uniform nomenclature, and sent to the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, to examine the issue of an appellate remedy; pending applications disposed of.