Madhya Pradesh High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
1 WP-4654-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4654 of 2024
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Sunder - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rishabh Singh - Advocate for respondent No.5.
Shri V. Choudhary - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for quashing of orders dated 29.01.2024
(Annexure-P/1), 22.12.2017 (Annexure-P/2) and 04.05.2023
(Annexure-P/3) passed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. By order dated 29.01.2024, petitioner was directed to
comply with order dated 22.12.2017 within period of fifteen days.
By said order direction was given to make payment of
compensation. Earlier also Collector has passed order to pay
compensation to respondent No.5 in accordance with its notice
No.786 vide order dated 22.12.2017.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
2 WP-4654-2024
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner corporation is deemed transmission licensee under the
Electricity Act, 2003. Purpose of creation of Power Grid
Corporation is to transmit the electricity throughout the country.
Part-3 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 gives power to the Telegraph
Authorities for placing and maintaining the Telegraph Lines. Section
10 of the Act of 1885 only empowers the authorities for laying of
high-tension line and to pay compensation to any persons who
suffered damages on his land. In the present case, petitioner
Corporation constructed high-tension line from Vindhyachal Polling
Station to Satna. Tower was constructed on the land of respondent
No.5. Respondent No.5 was granted compensation toward damages
incurred while laying of high-tension line and same was paid to
respondent No.5. It is submitted that petitioner Company is having
Right of Way and rights to use under, over, along, across or upon
property which empowers petitioner Corporation to construct high-
tension tower on the land of private land owner. Land owner on
whose land, tower is constructed is entitled to get the compensation
towards damages incurred in laying of high-tension tower i.e.
damage to crop. High-tension towers were constructed on land of
respondent No.5 and compensation was also paid which was towards
damage incurred laying of the tower. Sufficiency of compensation is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
3 WP-4654-2024
to be adjudicated upon by District Judge under Section 16(3) of the
Telegraph Act, 1885. If respondent No.5 is dissatisfied with
compensation awarded then remedy available to him is to approach
District Judge by filing application under Section 16 (3) of the Act
of 1885. Respondent No.3 does not have any jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the application of respondent No.5 for granting
compensation. It is submitted that house of respondent No.5 is
situated 17 meters away from the high-tension line and as per safety
guidelines, the required distance between 765 KV line is 10.35
meter. Therefore, house is situated at a safe distance and no
compensation is payable against the said house. In view of same,
prayer is made for quashing of impugned orders dated 29.01.2024
(Annexure-P/1), 22.12.2017 (Annexure-P/2) and 04.05.2023
(Annexure-P/3).
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted
that act of petitioner is in violation of mandatory provision of
Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act. Compensation of Rs.1840/- was
awarded to respondent No.5 towards damages caused to the land
while carried out excavation work. However, no compensation has
been awarded for causing damage to mud house. Petitioner
approached respondent No.3 raising the grievance and direction was
issued to petitioner to determine the amount of compensation to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
4 WP-4654-2024
paid to respondent No.5. No compensation was determined and paid
to respondent No.5. It is submitted that identical petition was filed
and withdrawn by petitioner. Petitioner ought to have approached
District Judge in light of Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act. In
cases of dispute, remedy is available under Section 16(3) of the Act.
In these circumstances, petition may be dismissed.
5. Similar grounds are taken by other respondents for
dismissal of writ petition.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties.
7. Petitioner has raised issue of jurisdiction of respondent
Nos.3 & 4 to adjudicate upon sufficiency of compensation which has
been awarded by petitioner to private respondent No.5. Learned
counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that remedy available to
private respondent No.5 is to prefer an appeal under Section 16(3) of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before District Judge and against
impugned orders passed by Revenue Authorities are without
jurisdiction.
8. On going through the facts of the case, it is found that
private respondent No.5 had filed an application before Upper
Collector regarding sufficiency of compensation amount. Damages
of Rs.1810/- was awarded to him and cheque was paid to him on
18.04.2016. Guideline was issued on 15.10.2015 for payment of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
5 WP-4654-2024
compensation by Union of India, Joint Secretary (Transmission),
Ministry of Power. Relevant guideline is reproduced as under:-
“2. The Recommendations made by the Committee
are hereby formulated in the form of following guidelines
for determining the compensation towards “damages” as
Stipulated in section 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act,
2003 read with Section 10 and 16 of Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 which will be in addition to the compensation
towards normal crop and tree damages. This amount will
be payable only for transmission lines supported by a
tower base of 66 KV and above, and not for sub-
transmission and distribution lines below 66 KV-
( i ) Compensation @ 85% of land value as
determined by District Magistrate or any other
authority based on Circle rate/ Guideline value/
Stamp Act rates for tower base area (between
four legs) impacted severely due to installation
of tower/pylon structure;
(ii) Compensation towards diminution of land
value in the width of Right of Way (RoW)
Corridor due to laying of transmission line and
imposing certain restriction would be decided
by the States as per categorization/type of land
in different places of States, Subject to a
maximum of 15%of land value as determined
based on Circle rate/ Guideline value/ Stamp
Act rates;
(iii) In areas where land owner/owners have
been Offered/ accepted alternate mode of
compensation by concerned corporation/
Municipality under Transfer Development
Rights (TDR) policy of State, the licensee
/Utility shall deposit compensation amount asSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
6 WP-4654-2024
per (i) & (ii) above with the concerned
Corporation/ Municipality/ Local Body or the
State Government.
(iv) For this purpose, the width of RoW
corridor shall not be more than that prescribed
in the table at Annex-2and shall not be less than
the width directly below the conductors.”
9. As per said guideline, over and above damages as stipulated
in Sections 10 and 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, District
Magistrate is required to assess compensation @ 85% of land value
based on circle rate/guideline value/stamp Act rates for tower base
area (between four legs). Compensation is also to be paid towards
diminution of land value in the width of the Right of Way due to
laying down of transmission line subject to maximum of 15% of
land value determined on base of circle rate. Said compensation is to
be paid over and above which is to be paid under Section 10(d) for
damages.
10. As per new guideline, compensation to be decided by
District Magistrate. State of Madhya Pradesh principally agreed to
the guidelines but want final decision to be left on them. Guidelines
prepared by Expert Committee was adopted by State Government on
11.05.2017 by revenue department by circular
No.R/3283/2016/7/2A. Collector has ordered to pay compensation
on 22.12.2017 i.e. after the adoption of guidelines by State
Government i.e. on 11.05.2017, therefore, direction given by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13807
7 WP-4654-2024
Collector for making payment of compensation by its order cannot
be said to be without jurisdiction. If a party is aggrieved by the order
of District Magistrate regarding compensation then he is at liberty to
approach District Judge by filing an appeal against such order. No
error of jurisdiction is found in the order passed by Collector dated
22.12.2017 (Annexure-P/2).
11. Petitioner is directed to comply with the order passed by
Collector and make payment of compensation as per guidelines
formulated by Ministry of Power dated 15.10.2015. Provision of
appeal under Section 16(3) is provided in case of dispute regarding
sufficiency of compensation before District Judge. Collector is not
an adjudicating authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
regarding sufficiency of compensation amount but original assessing
authority of compensation as per guideline dated 15.10.2015.
12. With aforesaid direction, petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
$A
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHABANA
ANSARI
Signing time: 09-04-2025
11:29:24