H.P State Electricity Board Petitioner v. Smt. Rattni Devi And Others S

Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)

The present petition arises out of the Award dated 7.12.2002 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P in petition No. 154-CM/6 of 2000, titled as Rattni (Smt) v. State Of H.P. filed by the present respondent No. 1 under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

The claimant's land was used by the petitioner herein for the purposes of setting up of a transmission tower. The dispute about the sufficiency of the compensation being in issue, an application under Section 16(3) of the Act was filed by the claimant/respondent. The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the application was barred by limitation as the tower was actually constructed in the year 1982 whereas the petition was filed in the year 2000. The maintainability of the petition even otherwise was challenged by the petitioner.

Based on the pleadings of the parties the Court below framed the following issues:

“(1) Whether the tower in question is constructed in the suit land comprising of Kh. No. 653 owned by the petitioner as alleged? OPP

(2) If issue No. 1 is proved whether the respondent has acquired title by adverse possession over the suit land as alleged? OPP

(3) If issue No. 2 is proved to what amount the petitioner is entitled to receive as compensation? OPP

(4) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

(4-A) Whether Shashi Paul is not entitled to any compensation in case the petition is decided in favour of the claimants? OPR-7

(5) Relief.”

Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties.

The Court below considered the material on record and held the claimant entitled to a compensation of Rs. 41,500/- for the use of two biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 653 situate in Village Majhgaon Shamlati, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P The plea of adverse possession and limitation was also turned down for want of any evidence on record. The Court below also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession of the land till the date of payment.

Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the award on two counts: (i) Application was filed after a period of 20 years hence the same was time barred. (ii) The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 16(3) of the Act.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record I am of the considered view that the petition needs to be dismissed.

Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act evidently makes it clear that if any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 Clause (d), an application by the disputing party shall be filed before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Admittedly the property is situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan.

Part III, Section 10 of the Act specifically empowers the authority to lay down a line, subject to the permission of the authority. In the present case that the permission stands accorded is not in dispute. The authority has power under Section 11 of the Act to enter into private property and under Section 16 of the Act all disputes are to be adjudicated by the District Judge. The compensation to be awarded has to be just, fair and reasonable which the party would have suffered. Hence the application is totally maintainable.

On the second point admittedly the petitioner had not paid any compensation to the claimant. The State is duty bound to pay the compensation in accordance with law. The power to enter into the premises and lay the line is coupled with duty to pay the compensation in accordance with law. The claimant cannot be deprived of her constitutional right as no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law. The court below, in any event has held that no evidence was led by the petitioner herein to prove the issue, burden of which was heavy upon it.

In almost similar circumstances where the property occupied by the State was not released and the State continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 32 years without any justification, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan, (2005) 8 SCC 696 not only directed the State to hand over the possession but also pay cost of Rs. 5 lacs. The Court held as under:-

“To be just and act in a just manner is writ large in the Constitution of India and the laws. The legislature is to act in a just manner by enacting just laws within the framework of the Constitution. The executive is enjoined with a duty to act or apply the laws in a just manner and if an individual or institution is dissatisfied with the State action in enacting the laws or their implementation he can approach the court seeking redressal of his grievances.”

“Unfortunately a dangerous attitude resulting in doing institution damage is developing, that justice is required to be done only by the courts. This attitude is betrayal of the Constitution as well as of the laws. Every and any authority working under the statute has to discharge is duties in a just manner. The present case is a typical example of such an attitude.”

Hence the plea of limitation is unsustainable in law.

For the aforesaid reasons the present appeal without any merit is dismissed.