Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4984/2016 on 28 February, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010117032016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(C) No. 4984 of 2016
1. Ratan Sutradhar,
S/o Late Umesh Chandra Mistry,
R/o Karaka Garvitar,
Mouza - Panduri, District - Kamrup, Assam.
2. Swapan Sutradhar @ Sri Sapan Sutradhar,
S/o Late Umesh Chandra Mistry,
R/o Karaka Garvitar,
Mouza- Panduri, District - Kamrup, Assam.
3. Jiban Sutradhar,
S/o Late Umesh Chandra Mistry,
R/o Karaka Garvitar,
Mouza - Panduri, District - Kamrup, Assam.
4. Babul Sutradhar,
S/o Late Umesh Chandra Mistry,
R/o Karaka Garvitar,
Mouza- Panduri, District - Kamrup, Assam.
5. Kiran Sutradhar @ Smti. Kiran Bala Sutradhar,
W/o Late Umesh Chandra Mistry.
.................. Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
Represented by its Commissioner and Secretary,
to the Government of Assam,
Department of Power, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
2. The Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd.,
Page No.# 2/13
Represented by its Managing Director,
Bijuli Bhawan, Paltan Bazar,
Guwahati-1, District - Kamrup [Metro], Assam.
3. The General Manager,
Lower Assam Zone T & T,
Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Ltd.,
Narengi, Guwahati-26,
District - Kamrup [Metro], Assam.
4. The Senior Manager,
132 K.V. Power Grid Sub-Station,
Chirakhundi, Rangia,
District - Kamrup, Assam, Pin-781354.
5. The Deputy Commissioner & Collector,
Karmup, P.O. Amingaon,
District - Kamrup, Assam, Pin-781031.
6. The Circle Officer,
Rangia Revenue Circle,
P.O. & P.S. Rangia,
District - Kamrup, Rural, Assam, Pin-781031.
7. The Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil],
Rangia Sub-Division,
Rangia, P.O. & P.S. Rangia,
District - Kamrup Rural,
Assam, Pin-781031.
8. The Assam Electricity Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Bijuli Bhawan, Paltan Bazar,
District - Kamrup Metro, Assam, Guwahati.
...................Respondents
Advocates :
Petitioners : Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Advocate.
Respondent nos. 1, 5, 6 & 7 : Mr. K. Goswami, Additional Senior Government Advocate
Respondent nos. 2 - 4 : T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate,
: Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Standing Counsel,
Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited
Date of Judgment & Order : 28.02.2022
Page No.# 3/13
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7; and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited [AEGCL] for the respondent nos. 2-4.
2. At the inception, the learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the Assam State Electricity Board, which is arrayed as the respondent no. 8 in the writ petition, is not a necessary party in this proceeding. In view of such submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the name of the respondent no. 8 be striked off from the array of respondents.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court by this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to pay an amount of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- to the petitioners towards Zirat compensation and other damages caused to the land belonging to the petitioners due to installation of a 132 K.V. Power Grid line over the land of the petitioners.
4. The case projected on behalf of the petitioners in this writ petition is, in brief, that one Umesh Chandra Mistry was the landowner of a plot of land measuring 12 Bighas 4 Kathas 6 Lessas, covered by Dag nos. 862 & 864 and Periodic Patta nos. 268 & 287, situated at Village - Karara Garbhitar, Mouza -
Page No.# 4/13 Panduri, District - Kamrup ['the subject-plot', for convenience]. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Umesh Chandra Mistry [since deceased]. After the death of the original landowner, Umesh Chandra Mistry, the petitioners are enjoying the possession of the subject-plot without any disturbance by constructing their dwelling houses thereon.
5. According to the petitioners, they have planted valuable trees like Segun, Sishu, Khokan, Ahat, bamboo, etc. and some valuable fruit bearing trees like mango, banana, jackfruits, litchi, betel nuts, coconut, tal, etc. over the subject- plot but the respondent authorities in the AEGCL while constructing the transmission line, had cut down those trees. As a result, the petitioners have suffered considerable economic loss.
6. According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities while cutting down the trees did not follow the procedure contained in the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities without giving any prior notice to the petitioners, entered into the subject-plot and started the survey in the month of December, 2014. The petitioners submitted an application before the respondent no. 7 on 10.09.2014 seeking due compensation towards Zirat and damages caused to the subject- plot. The petitioners also served a legal notice dated 21.10.2014 upon the respondent no. 4 in that connection.
7. The respondent authorities in the AEGCL have submitted an affidavit-in- opposition traversing the contentions of the petitioners in the writ petition.
8. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent AEGCL Page No.# 5/13 authorities has submitted that the respondent AEGCL authorities had exercised the Right of Way for the purpose of stringing a 220 KV, D/C transmission line from 220 KV Salakati Grid S/S, Salakati to 132 KV Grid Sub-Station at Rangia. The transmission line has been installed over the subject-plot and also a number of other plots of land and for that purpose, the respondent authorities had exercised the Right of Way under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with the Electricity Act, 2003. As such, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not applicable. The respondent authorities have duly assessed the compensation after a joint survey conducted by the District Administration and the officials of the respondent authorities in the AEGCL in presence of the petitioners. After the joint survey, a sum of Rs. 6,47,696/- has been assessed to be payable to the petitioners towards Zirat compensation under the provisions of Section 10[d] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 r/w the Electricity Act, 2003.
9. Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that the petitioner is only aggrieved by the amount of compensation so assessed and for redressal of such grievance, the petitioners have an alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
10. In response to the above submissions of Mr. Mahanta, Mr. Sheikh has submitted that the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply would amply justify that the petitioners are entitled to much higher amount than that had been assessed by the respondent authorities in the case in hand and the petitioners are in position to lead evidence to substantiate such claims. Mr. Sehikh has submitted that the petitioners are pursuing the writ petition with diligence for a Page No.# 6/13 number of years. If the petitioners are now made to prefer an application under Section 16 [3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 the same would be beyond the period of limitation.
11. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record by the parties.
12. Before dwelling on the issues raised by the petitioners herein it is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which read as under :
"10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph 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] the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the Central Government, or to be so established or maintained;
[b] the Central Government shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and [c] except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and [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 Page No.# 7/13 [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] If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10 in respect of property referred to in clause [d] of that Section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority shall be permitted to exercise them.
[2] If, after the making of an order under sub-section [1], any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having control over the property, does not give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [45 of 1860].
[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 situate, be determined by him.
[4] If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section [3], that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it.
[5] Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge under sub-section [3], or sub-section [4] shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority, from the person who has received the same."
Page No.# 8/13
13. The averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent authorities in the AEGCL go to indicate that stringing of 220 KV, D/C transmission line from 220 KV Salakati Grid S/S, Salakati to 132 KV Grid Sub- Station at Rangia was done partly over the lands of several landowners after obtaining the Right of Way from the appropriate Government. With regard to the subject-plot belonging to the petitioner is concerned, it has been averred that no tower has been installed in the subject-plot but the transmission line has gone over the subject-plot belonging to the petitioners. A joint survey was conducted by the revenue officials in the district in presence of the representatives of the AEGCL and the petitioners and after such survey, an amount of Rs. 6,47,696/- has been assessed towards Zirat Compensation found entitled by the petitioners for the damages caused to the subject-plot belonging to the petitioners in stringing the transmission line. The petitioners were served a notice dated 20.04.2016 whereby they were requested to receive the assessed amount towards Zirat compensation for damages caused to the subject-plot due to stringing of 220 KV Salakati-Rangia transmission line. But the petitioners have refused to accept the said amount and have preferred this writ petition instead, seeking an amount of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- as compensation.
14. It is by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 68, Section 69 and Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the appropriate Government can confer upon a licensee engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Electricity Act, 2003, subject to such conditions and restrictions, any of the powers possessed by the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts, for the purpose of placing of electric lines for transmission of electricity. Sub-Section [3] of Section Page No.# 9/13 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has provided in specific terms that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause [d], the aggrieved party is required to file an application in that respect before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated and in the event of preferring such an application, the jurisdictional District Judge can determine the sufficiency or otherwise of the compensation already assessed and in an appropriate case, can also enhance the amount of compensation.
15. In a case where there is a specific remedy provided under the concerned statute to agitate the issue raised in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whether a writ petition under Article 226 should be entertained or not, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Thansingh Nathmal vs. the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others , reported in AIR 1964 SC 1419, has observed in the following manner :-
"7.........The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy which, without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in Page No.# 10/13 another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be by-passed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up ."
16. In view of the availability of statutory remedy under sub-section [3] of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to the petitioners, the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the amount of compensation assessed at Rs. 6,47,696/- by the respondent authorities, they should approach the jurisdictional District Judge seeking adequate compensation for the damages caused to the subject- plot for stringing of the 220 KV Salakati-Rangia transmission line. To establish the claim that the petitioners are entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards damages, the petitioners and the respondents have to lead evidence - oral as well as documentary for determination of facts which is not possible in a writ petition. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition since option is available to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under sub-section [3] of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
17. Though the petitioners did not approach the jurisdictional District Judge at the first point of time, they have approached this Court instead invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing the writ petition on 18.08.2016.
18. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma , reported in [1976] 4 SCC 634, that in dealing with applications under Section 16 of the Indian Page No.# 11/13 Telegraph Act, 1885 for compensation the District Judge acts as a civil court and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applicable for the purpose of limitation.
19. It may also be apposite to refer to the provision contained in sub-section [1] of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a Court without jurisdiction. For ready reference, the said provision is quoted hereunder :
"14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.
[1] In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it."
20. The petitioners instead of resorting to the statutory remedy, have assailed the actions of the respondents before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is not entertained in view of availability of the statutory remedy under Section 16 [3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The true purport of the words, 'other cause of like nature', appearing in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., reported in [2004] 3 SCC 458. It has been held therein to the effect that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. In Roshanlal Page No.# 12/13 Kuthalia v. R.B. Mohan Singh Oberoi , reported in [1975] 4 SCC 628, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the words, 'other cause of like nature', to the effect that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where defects are not merely jurisdictional strictly so called but others more or less neighbours to such deficiencies. Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the Court of the dispute on merits comes within the scope of Section 14 and a liberal approach is to be adopted in interpreting the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act so as not to deprive the person aggrieved to avail the remedy if he has a right. In a three-judge Bench decision in Rameshwarlal vs. Municipal Council, Tonk, reported in [1996] 6 SCC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the import and purport of the words, 'other cause of a like nature', appearing in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, has held that if the High Court has declined to grant relief relegating the petitioner to a suit in the civil court, the petitioner cannot be left remediless. Accordingly, the time taken in prosecuting before the High Court, if pursued diligently and bona fide, needs to be excluded. In Shakti Tubes Limited vs. State of Bihar and others , reported in [2009] 1 SCC 786, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally.
21. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition is therefore, not entertained, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to seek the statutory remedy under Section 16 [3] of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In the event the petitioner prefers any such application before the jurisdictional Court under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is observed that the jurisdictional Court shall consider the issue of limitation liberally in the light of Page No.# 13/13 the observations made hereinabove with regard to the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if any delay is occasioned in availing the statutory remedy and thereafter, shall proceed to consider the application on merits and in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
22. At this stage, Mr. Sheikh has submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to disburse the amount of Rs. 6,47,696/- which has already been assessed towards Zirat compensation, etc. to the petitioners. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent AEGCL authorities has submitted that the amount is already kept ready and the petitioners can approach the concerned respondent authority seeking release of the said amount in terms of the notice dated 20.04.2016. It is, therefore, observed that in the event the petitioners approach the respondent AEGCL authorities seeking release of the said amount of Rs. 6,47,696/-, without prejudice to their right to seek enhanced compensation, the respondent authorities shall disburse the same within a period of 6 [six] weeks from the date of receipt of such application seeking release of the said amount.
23. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant