In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has raised the need for uniformity in filing of cases under the Telegraph Act of 1885. The bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and M.M. Sundresh in Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd vs Vinod on 18 August 2025 set aside the order by the High Court and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration on correct methodology and new evidence.
The dispute relates to the compensation claimed by landowners for the utilization of their land for installing transmission towers and laying overhead high-voltage power lines under the “400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System – PPP-1” project, which extends for nearly 100 kilometers across the districts of Sonepat, Jhajjar, Rohtak, and Bhiwani. Invoking Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the landowners approached the Additional District Judges in Sonepat and Jhajjar to seek compensation.
The bench specified that under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, only the right of use is acquired. The ownership remains with the landowners. In Kerala SEB v. Livisha, observed that while no rigid rule exists for determining compensation in cases involving telegraph and electrical lines, certain relevant factors must be taken into account.
Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act permits the filing of an application before the District Judge in the event of a compensation dispute. In the present case, such an application filed in Sonepat was treated and registered as a civil suit, resulting in both a judgment and decree. In contrast, in Jhajjar, the matter was registered as a civil miscellaneous application, leading only to a judgment. This inconsistency highlights the need for uniformity in the nomenclature applied to proceedings under the 1885 Act. The Court found that the same is necessary to be done in similar proceedings arising under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.
