LexKALPATARU POWER TRANSMISSION LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) versus VINOD AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1053 : 2025 INSC 1004 Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeal No(s). 10882-10888 of 2025) 19 August 2025 [M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of damages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towers, whereas the Contractor challenging the amount of compensation awarded; and whether there should be some remedy of appeal against order passed by the District Judge. Headnotes† Telegraph Act, 1885 – s.16(3), (4) – Disputes as to compensation – Assessment of compensation for the Tower Base Area (land beneath four legs of the tower) and the Right of Way-ROW Corridor – Utilization of land owned by the landowners for erection of tower or drawing power lines in four districts, however ownership of the land not transferred – Damages suffered by the landowners – Petition u/s.16(3) before the District Judge by the landowners – Award of compensation by District Judge of Sonepat and Jhajjar respectively – High Court decided bunch of petitions, and awarded uniform compensation to the landowners @ 85% of the collector rate beneath the tower area, determined at ₹1.50 crores per acre, and for diminishing the value of land across the width of ROW, 15% of the value of land, on account of imposition of restrictions on utilization thereof – High Court assessed the compensation in all cases on basis of the facts pertaining to land in district Sonepat only, without touching the facts pertaining to district Jhajjar – Sustainability: Held: Order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained – High Court failed to appreciate the fundamental fact that land * Author 1054 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports pertaining to different villages falling in different districts, which may be the subject matter of consideration for assessment of compensation, would have been assessed differently by the Collector based on their respective locations and characteristics – Facts only pertaining to district Sonepat have been discussed – Applying a uniform rate for the entire transmission corridor would not be a proper methodology for assessing fair compensation to which the landowners are entitled to – Thus, the manner adopted by the High Court for assessment of compensation not approved – Some parties invoked Art. 226, whereas others filed petitions invoking Art. 227 challenging the judgments of the trial court, which were delivered on appreciation of evidence – This is solely because no proper appellate remedy has been provided against the order passed by the District Judge – There are other gaps as well in the statutory scheme-limited determination of compensation, no timelines regarding payment of compensation to the affected parties after the right u/s.10(d) is exercised by the competent authority – This being an Act of Parliament, its application has to be uniform throughout the country – In the absence of defined parameters, it will depend on different courts, how they interpret the provisions – Unless statutory remedy of appeal is provided where all issues of law and facts can be re-examined, any other remedy may be illusionary – Remedies availed by different parties were different – Reappriciation of evidence in those proceedings may be an issue – Anomalies with reference to various timelines as well, the matter to be examined – Issues to be examined by the Law Commission of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, to determine whether a statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against judgments/orders passed u/s.16(3) and 16(4), the Petroleum Act or any other similar statute – In district Sonepat, application for dispute related to compensation was registered and numbered as a Civil Suit where a judgment and decree was passed, whereas in district Jhajjar, the same was registered as a Civil Miscellaneous Application and only judgment was passed – Need to bring uniformity in the nomenclature to be assigned to these kind of proceedings, which may come to the court under the 1885 Act and also the proceedings under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 – Order passed by the High Court set aside – Matters remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration – Electricity Act, 200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.