http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: K.G. PADMANABHA PRABHU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.   We  have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment and order  of the  learned single   Judge of the High Court, made on 19.4.1996 in C.R.P. Nos. 832 and 834 of 1993.      The admitted facts are that the appellant is having the land (with  trees standing  thereon) admeasuring 6 acres and 21 cents  in Survey No. 560/2 and 60-1/2 cents in survey No. 563/1 and  5 acres  and 42  cents in  survey  No.  634/2  of pulluttu village  . The  respondents invoked by notification dated 21.6.1969,  the provisions of section 51 of the Indian Electricity   Act, 1910  and section  10 to 18 of the Indian Telegraph Act,  1885 for acquiring the land of the appellant for laying  electric lines  by cutting  the tress,  standing thereon.   The appellant  laid the claim before the District Court under  section 1092) to 16(3)  of the Indian Telegraph Act   and section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for compensation.      The   District   Judge   determined   the compensation.   The Dissatisfied  therewith,   the appellant filed revisions   in  the High  court. The High Court in the impugned order  confirmed  the  compensation  paid  for  the trees,  but set aside the determination  of the compensation with regard  to the   diminution  of value  of the  land  on account of  laying of  the electric lines across the land of the appellant. Thus, these appeals  by special leave.      Since we  were not  familiar with  the  nature  of  the procedure followed  in this  behalf, we  directed    Mr.  G. Vishwanatha  Iyer,   learned  senior     counsel    for  the respondent -  Electricity Board  in acquiring  the trees for erection  of the electricity  Board  in acquiring  the trees for erection  of the  electric lines  across the land of the appellant.   An affidavit  by the competent officer together with  the   proceedings  has  been  filed  in  that  behalf. Notification  dated June 21, 1969 does  indicate as under:      " S.R.O.  No. 270/69.-- In exercise      of the  powers conferred by section      51 of  the Indian  Electricity Act,      1910 (Act  9  of  1910),    and  in      supersession  of  Notification  No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    ELI-198/60-I/ PW  dated 6th January      1960, published  on page 50 of Part      I of  the Gazette  dated 12.1.1960,      The  Government  of  Kerala  hereby      confer upon  the Engineers  of  the      Kerala state  Electricity Board  of      and above  the rank   of  Assistant      Engineers to  exercise,    for  the      purpose of  placing  of  appliances      and apparatus,   for the survey and      construction  of lines etc, etc. of      our the  transmission  distribution      or use  of electrical energy within      their respective jurisdictions, all      the powers which the Telegraph Act,      1985 (Act  18 of 1885) with respect      to the  placing of  telegraph lines      and posts   for  the purposes  of a      telegraph established or maintained      by   Government       or    to   be      established or maintained."      In furtherance thereof,  sanction has been accorded for acquisition   of the  trees as  mentioned  in  the  sanction order which reads as under:      " Sanction  is hereby  accorded for      an  estimate   amounting   to   Rs.      95,000/-   (Rupees    ninety   five      thousands  only)  for  constructing      2.2 kms.   of  11 kv.  Kodwagallur-      parur feeder  outgoing  feeder from      Kodungallu   sub-section      under      Electrical  Division   Irinjalakuda      Sub-Divn.  Iringalakuda Expenditure      to the  extent of  Rs. 95,000/- may      be met   form  the budget provision      for   76-77   Electrical   Division      Iringalakuda     under      voltage      improvement basis."      The Board  has vide  Resolution dated  July    1,  1992 decided to  follow   the procedure  provided   in  the  Land Acquisition  Act  and  the  Land  Acquisition    Manual  for determination   of  the  compensation    for    trees.    It postulates the  notice to  the owner   and  powers of entry. marking of  the trees  as provided  in paragraph 13 and then preparation  of  the  valuation  statement  as  provided  in paragraph 17  of the  Manual and  the diminution of the land value on  account of  the instalation of electric lines over private properties as provided n paragraph 30 of the Manual. Accordingly,   the award  s  required  to  be  passed  under paragraph 33 of the  Manual in that  behalf.      Pursuant thereto,  notice in  this behalf  was given to the    appellant  and on  the basis  thereof,  the appellant filed the  claim in O.P.  Nos.  20/87 and 202 of 1986 before the District  Court for  determination of  the compensation. Thus, it  could be  seen that the claim has been made by the appellant under  section 51  of the   Electricity Act,  1910 and section  10 to  16(3).    Section  16(3)  f  the  Indian Telegraph Act  reads as under :      "  16(3)   If  any   dispute  arise      concerning   the   sufficiency   of      compensation  to   be  paid   under      section 10,  clause (d),  it shall,      on application   for that   purpose      by either  of the disputing parties      to the  District Judge within whose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    jurisdiction     the  property   is      situate,  be determined by him."      It would  clearly indicate  that if  any dispute arises between  the   parties  concerning     the   sufficiency  of compensation,  they are entitled to lay the claim before the District  court  and  the  District  court  is  required  to determine the  compensation since  the procedure  prescribed under the Munal of the Land  Acquisition  was adopted by the Electricity Board.   the  appellant has  rightly  availed of the procedure  as indicated  in the  petition itself.  thus, the     appellant  has   perfectly  followed  the  procedure prescribed by law and needs no interference.      The question  then is:  whether the  courts below  have committed any  error  in determining the compensation?  With regard to the quantum,  we are of the view that the District court has  minutely gone  into the  question. The High Court has also   addressed  itself in  this  behalf.  It  being  a finding of  fact, we  do not  like  to  interfere  with  the findings. with regard to the diminution of the extent of the land.   the trial  court has  recorded a finding  and it was confirmed by  the High  Court. We  feel that since no contra finding was  recorded by High Court as regards the extent of the land and only diminution of the value is in issue, we do not express  any opinion  in this   behalf.     The District Judge   should  go  into  the  question  and  decide  it  in accordance with law.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed.  No costs.