Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions. The first writ petition was filed by Sau. Kalpana Rukhabdas Jain, a landowner, challenging the order dated 25.1.1994 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.540/1992. The District Judge upheld a preliminary objection raised by the respondents (Maharashtra State Electricity Board) that the application moved by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was not maintainable. The petitioner had filed that application for recovery of compensation on account of removal/cutting of trees in her field property by the respondents for the purpose of erecting overhead wires/lines. The second writ petition was filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board challenging the order dated 23.5.1996 passed in M.C.A. No.2/1995 by the District Magistrate, Nagpur. By that order, the District Magistrate permitted the petitioner to remove the trees as contemplated under Section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The legal issues were whether an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is maintainable for compensation for tree removal by the electricity board, and whether the District Judge has jurisdiction to entertain such application. The court analyzed the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, particularly Section 51 of the Electricity Act which makes the Telegraph Act applicable to electricity boards. The court held that the application under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act is maintainable and the District Judge has jurisdiction to decide compensation. The court allowed the first writ petition and dismissed the second writ petition.
Headnote
A) Telegraph Act - Compensation - Maintainability - Section 16(3) Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Application for compensation for removal of trees by electricity board is maintainable under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as the provisions of the Telegraph Act are applicable to electricity boards under Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The District Judge has jurisdiction to decide such application. (Paras 1-10) B) Electricity Act - Tree Removal - Compensation - Section 18 Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 does not bar the application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The landowner is entitled to compensation for trees cut by the electricity board for laying overhead lines. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is maintainable for compensation for tree removal by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, and whether the District Judge has jurisdiction to entertain such application.
Final Decision
The court allowed Writ Petition No.599/1994, setting aside the order of the District Judge dated 25.1.1994, and directed the District Judge to decide the application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act on merits. The court dismissed Writ Petition No.1966/1997 filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board.
Law Points
- Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act
- 1885 applies to electricity boards for compensation for tree removal
- Section 18 of Indian Electricity Act
- 1910 does not bar such application
- District Judge has jurisdiction to decide compensation
