Indian Telegraph Act | Supreme Court Strikes Down Uniform Compensation Award | Recommends Creation Of Statutory Appeal Against District Judge’s Orders Under S.16(3)
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that the impugned order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana could not be legally sustained and therefore must be set aside. The Bench directed that the matters be remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Court also ordered that copies of the judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court for appropriate administrative steps and to the Ministry of Law and Justice for examination of statutory provisions.
The judgment dealt with multiple appeals arising from a common order passed by the High Court on February 24, 2023. The dispute concerned compensation claims by landowners in districts Sonepat and Jhajjar, whose lands were affected by erection of transmission towers and laying of power lines for the 400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1 project. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited initiated the project by issuing a Request for Quotation on January 13, 2009, and awarded it to Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited. The latter subcontracted Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. on October 29, 2010 for erection and commissioning services.
The total length of the transmission line was 100 kilometers, including Jharli-Kabulpur (35 km), Kabulpur-Dipalpur (64 km), and a 1 km loop-in-loop-out at Dipalpur. The line passed through Bhiwani, Jhajjar, Rohtak, and Sonepat. Ownership of land was not transferred; however, landowners claimed damages for erection of towers and drawing of high-tension lines.
At Sonepat, three applications under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 were filed before the Additional District Judge, who awarded compensation at 85% of collector rate amounting to ₹85,00,000 per acre with 8% interest for tower base area. Aggrieved parties, including landowners, the contractor, and HVPNL, challenged the order before the High Court. At Jhajjar, landowners also filed for compensation under Section 16(3). The Trial Court initially awarded ₹30,00,000 in 2016, which was set aside and remanded by the High Court in 2019. Upon remand, the Trial Court fixed ₹26,12,000 with 18% interest from 2011.
In the High Court, the cases were consolidated but only evidence from Sonepat was considered, leading to a uniform compensation determination at 85% of collector rate (₹1.5 crores per acre) and 15% diminution of value for the Right of Way. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by both contractors and landowners.
The contractors argued that landowners retained usage of land under the lines with restrictions, and hence full compensation was unjustified. They contended that studies on electromagnetic effects relied upon by the lower court had no evidentiary value. They further submitted that the 2015 Ministry of Power guidelines, relied upon by the High Court, were not adopted by Haryana and were issued after the transmission line was erected. Landowners, however, argued they were entitled to 100% compensation for tower base areas as such land became unusable, and additional compensation for restrictions in the Right of Way.
The Bench recorded that the High Court erred in consolidating matters from Sonepat and Jhajjar but applying evidence only from Sonepat. “The first error committed by the High Court, which is apparent on the face of it is that cases pertaining to areas falling in two different districts have been decided by a common judgment while referring to the material with reference to district Sonepat only.”
It further noted that the High Court treated writ petitions and revision petitions as if they were original proceedings. “Rather, challenge before the High Court in the writ petition filed under Article 226 and some petitions filed under Article 227 was to the judgments of the Trial Court, which were delivered on appreciation of evidence. The High Court, merely on the basis of pleadings in the High Court stating that the same has not been denied, has recorded findings.”
The Supreme Court also observed: “We are not approving the manner adopted by the High Court for assessment of compensation. The fact remains that the compensation has been calculated on the basis of collector’s rate, which will be a matter of evidence pertaining to each area where the land is situated.” The Court held that applying a uniform rate for a 100 km stretch covering varied locations was not legally proper. “Applying a uniform rate for the entire transmission corridor would not be a proper methodology for assessing fair compensation.”
Regarding reliance on the Ministry of Power guidelines, the Court stated: “The notification in the present case was published on 12.07.2010. Even the notice regarding erection of towers and drawing of power lines was issued… much before the aforesaid guidelines were issued.” The Bench recorded that administrative instructions could not control judicial determination of compensation.
On adequacy of statutory remedies, the Court observed that Section 16(5) of the Indian Telegraph Act attaches finality to orders of the District Judge, leaving only extraordinary jurisdiction before High Courts. “Unless statutory remedy of appeal is provided where all issues of law and facts can be re-examined, any other remedy may be illusionary.” It noted absence of timelines, interest provisions, and uniformity in registration of cases, stating need for legislative review. The Court recommended examination of these aspects by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court. “For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained, hence, the same is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.” The Bench requested the High Court to hear the matters expeditiously.
It further directed: “A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for placing the same before Hon’ble Chief Justice for taking the appropriate steps in terms of observations made in paragraph 36 above.” The Registry was also directed to send a copy to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to examine the issue and take appropriate steps.
Case Title: Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (now known as Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. with connected appeals
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1004
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 10882-10888 of 2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Rajesh Bindal
