Allahabad High Court
Chandramal vs U.P. Power Corporation And 2 Others on 28 July, 2022
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15393 of 2022 Petitioner :- Chandramal Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayub Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Agarawal,Pankaj Agarwal,Pankaj Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
The petitioner herein states that he has not received compensation for the trees existing over the property in question, namely, khata no.172, plot no.1443 area .369 hectares situated at village Mursana, Pargana Baran, Tehsil and District Bulandshahr over which, a transmission line has been laid by the respondent no.3.
It is stated that the notices were issued to the petitioner in the year 2015, 2017 and 2020 but adequate compensation has not been paid.
Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3. He states that the work of laying down transmission line has already been completed and on the basis of survey of the plot in question at the time of installation of high tension electricity line, compensation has been determined and received by the petitioner.
The attention of the Court is invited to page-'80' of the paper book to assert that at the time of laying of the high tension electricity line there were no trees and as such the petitioner is not entitled for compensation.
Be that as it may, the issue being raised herein is about the adequacy of compensation determined by the competent authority in accordance with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act categorically provides that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause (d), on an application made by either of the disputing party, the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, can determine the dispute.
In view of the said provision, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the District Judge concerned.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
In case, the petitioner approaches the District Judge concerned, an independent decision shall be taken on the dispute raised before him and in no way any observation made herein would be taken as our decision on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Radhika