-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
"Remedy May Not Be Effective and Can Become Illusionary" — Supreme Court Flags Absence of Appeal Under Telegraph Act, 1885. Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment that not only set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court's common order awarding compensation for land affected by power transmission towers but also called for legislative reforms in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, under which such compensation claims are adjudicated.
The Court ruled that awarding uniform compensation across districts without evidentiary basis is legally flawed and highlighted the absence of an appellate mechanism under the Act as a "serious statutory gap". Observing that “assessment of compensation must be rooted in evidence specific to each parcel of land”, the Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court.
The case arose from a batch of civil appeals concerning compensation to landowners whose lands were traversed by the 400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System – PPP-1, a project covering approximately 100 km across four districts in Haryana — Sonepat, Jhajjar, Bhiwani, and Rohtak.
The main contractor, Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., had been engaged for erection of towers and high-tension lines without acquiring ownership of the land. The affected landowners, claiming diminution in land value and loss of use due to overhead lines and tower bases, approached courts for compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while deciding petitions from multiple districts through a common order dated 24.02.2023, awarded uniform compensation to all landowners based on the collector rate in Sonepat district, and by relying on administrative guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power (MoP) in 2015. This approach was challenged by the contractor and also by the landowners seeking enhancement.
“Applying a uniform rate for the entire transmission corridor would not be a proper methodology”
The first and most glaring error, the Supreme Court observed, was that the High Court “assessed compensation uniformly for land in different districts based solely on facts from Sonepat”, without examining the “geographical, economic and locational diversity” of lands affected in other districts like Jhajjar. The High Court's judgment, it said, “read as if it was on the original side deciding a writ petition, ignoring the fact that the trial courts had already taken evidence and issued detailed findings.”
Referring to its earlier ruling in Kerala SEB v. Livisha, the Court reiterated that no hard and fast rule exists for compensation in cases involving right of way under the Telegraph Act:
“The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon… would be determinative.”
“The High Court considered the matter as if it was dealing with it on original side”
The Court was scathing in its criticism of the procedural irregularities committed by the High Court. It noted that compensation was assessed on unauthenticated collector rates, and that even sale deeds relied on were from villages not pertaining to the lands in dispute. The Court underscored:
“The Collector's award was not part of the formal evidence, but the Court relied upon it merely because the pleading had not been denied.”
Further, the High Court “wrongly presumed the applicability of the Ministry of Power Guidelines dated 15.10.2015”, which were issued after the initiation of the project and had not been adopted by the State of Haryana.
“Even assuming deemed consent, the guidelines were not binding, and could not be retrospectively applied to a project where notices had been issued and execution commenced much earlier.”
“Assessment of compensation must be rooted in evidence specific to each parcel of land”
In a crucial observation, the Court held that compensation under the Telegraph Act must be evidence-based, not presumed or extrapolated. It clarified that “land near a highway or urban zone cannot be valued on the same footing as agricultural land in interior rural belts”, stating:
“While referring to the facts of one case that the suit land forms part of the National Capital Region… compensation was uniformly assessed for lands spread over a 100-km corridor — this is impermissible.”
Need for Statutory Reform Under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
“Unless a statutory remedy of appeal is provided… any other remedy may be illusionary”
In a sweeping critique of the legal framework under the Telegraph Act, 1885, the Court turned its focus to Section 16, which provides for adjudication of compensation disputes by a District Judge, but:
Does not provide for an appeal
Lacks procedural timelines
Fails to prescribe interest rates for delayed payments
Offers no clarity on nomenclature or uniformity in proceedings
The Court observed:
“The Act does not provide any timeline within which an application can be filed, nor does it specify the starting point of limitation.”
“Each District Court has adopted its own nomenclature — one calls it a civil suit, another a civil misc. application. This reflects confusion and lack of uniformity.”
More significantly, the Court flagged the absence of an appellate forum as a serious procedural deficiency, remarking:
“The findings of fact recorded by the District Judge become final, and the only available remedy is judicial review, where evidence is not reappreciated — this makes the remedy illusory.”
“The 1885 Act has not been amended despite changed infrastructure realities”
The Court reflected on the colonial origins of the Act and remarked:
“When the 1885 Act was enacted, there was limited development and value of land was negligible. Today, transmission lines affect lands worth crores — yet the legal framework remains frozen in time.”
The Court compared this statutory vacuum with modern laws like the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the National Highways Act, and Railways Act, all of which provide for fair compensation, clear timelines, interest, and appellate remedies.
“The order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained”
Holding the High Court’s judgment to be legally unsustainable, the Supreme Court set it aside and remitted the matters for fresh adjudication. It urged the High Court to assess each case on the basis of specific evidence, and ensure that compensation reflects location, land use, and actual impact.
“We request the High Court to make an effort to take up the matters expeditiously.”
Further, the Court directed: “A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for placing the same before Hon’ble Chief Justice for taking appropriate steps… and to the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, to examine the issue and take appropriate steps.”
“Remedy of Appeal Must Be Statutory — Not an Accident of Constitutional Interpretation”
In a broader sense, this judgment is a wake-up call for legislative modernization. It addresses not only how compensation must be fairly assessed, but also how statutory frameworks must evolve to reflect current socio-economic realities.
The Supreme Court has made it clear: "Administrative guidelines cannot override statutory rights. Judicial remedies must not be left to improvisation. Rule of law demands structure."
Date of Decision: August 19, 2025
