The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment for failing to properly assess compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It emphasized that compensation must be determined based on location-specific evidence and remanded the cases. The Court also highlighted the absence of a statutory appeal mechanism against orders of the District Judge and referred the issue to the Law Commission for examination.
Facts Of The Case:
A power transmission project titled “400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1” was initiated by HVPNL in Haryana. Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited (JKTPL) was awarded the project, which sub-contracted the erection work to Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. The 100 km-long transmission line passed through land in four districts, including Sonepat and Jhajjar. The ownership of the land remained with the landowners, who only granted a right of way for erecting towers and drawing power lines.Disputes arose regarding the sufficiency of compensation paid for the damages suffered, including the use of land beneath the towers and the imposition of restrictions on land use under the overhead lines. Landowners filed applications under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the respective District Judges in Sonepat and Jhajjar. The Trial Courts awarded compensation, which was subsequently challenged by both the landowners (seeking enhancement) and the contractor/power company (challenging the quantum) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court, by a common judgment, enhanced the compensation by applying a uniform rate. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court by all parties.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began with landowners filing applications under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Judges in Sonepat and Jhajjar, challenging the sufficiency of compensation for the right of way used for a power transmission line. The Trial Courts passed orders awarding compensation.Dissatisfied with these orders, both the landowners and the contractor/power companies filed petitions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The landowners sought enhancement through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, while the contractors challenged the quantum via civil revision petitions under Article 227The High Court delivered a common judgment, which was subsequently appealed by all parties before the Supreme Court through special leave petitions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matters back to it for a fresh decision, citing legal errors in the assessment of compensation.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court: Civil Courts Can Hear Cases If Land is Declared Non-Agricultural During Trial
Court Observation:
The Court observed that the High Court committed a fundamental error by assessing compensation using a uniform rate for land across different villages and districts, ignoring location-specific factors and evidence. It held that the value of land must be determined based on its individual characteristics, proximity to infrastructure, and local collector rates, not a one-size-fits-all approach.Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a statutory appellate remedy against orders of the District Judge under the Telegraph Act, leading to inconsistent recourse through writ or revision petitions. It highlighted gaps in the statutory framework, including undefined timelines for filing disputes and payment of interest, and referred these issues to the Law Commission for examination to ensure uniformity and effective remedy.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, holding that the uniform assessment of compensation without considering location-specific evidence was legally unsustainable. The matters were remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law, with a direction to expedite the proceedings. Additionally, the Court highlighted the absence of a statutory appeal mechanism against orders passed under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act and referred the issue to the Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice to examine the need for introducing a formal appellate remedy and uniform procedural norms.
Case Details:
Case Title: KALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) vs. VINOD AND ORS. ETC. Citation: 2025 INSC 1004 Civil Appeal No(s).: 10882-10888 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 19, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal
Download The Judgement Here