CHHOTELAL MAHTO vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Aggrieved of order dated 11.08.2004 passed in Misc. Case No.5 of 1995 by which the trial Judge has fixed Rs.25, 570/- as compensation payable

to the opposite-parties, the petitioner has approached this Court; the petitioner was opposite-party no.3.

Briefly stated, pursuant to an observation of Patna High Court in order dated 02.12.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. No.427 of 1991, an application under

section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The petitioner was made opposite-party no.3 in

Misc. Case No.5 of 1995. During pendency of the miscellaneous case, the petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.544 of 2004 which was

disposed of on 04.02.2004 with a direction to the District Judge, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa to dispose of Misc. Case No.5 of 1995 within a period of

three months. By judgment dated 11.08.2004, Misc. Case No.5 of 1995 has been finally disposed of and as noticed above, Rs.25, 570/- has been fixed

as compensation payable to the opposite-parties.

Under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in the event of a dispute on sufficiency of compensation to be paid under section 10(d) an

application before the District

Judge is maintainable, which shall determine the amount of compensation. Under sub-section 5 of section 16 of the Act every determination of a

dispute by a District Judge under sub-section 3, or sub-section 4 shall be final. The judgment in Misc. Case No.5 of 1995 proceeds to examine the

evidences led by the parties. It has taken note of the witnesses produced by the parties and after elaborate discussion on the evidences led by the

parties, the District Judge has determined compensation payable to the opposite-parties at Rs.25,570/-. The contention that the entire extent of land

should have been considered for determining the compensation under section 10(d) in view of order passed under section 16(3) is untenable. On a

dispute on the amount of compensation payable under section 10(d), section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 comes into play.

In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the order dated 11.08.2004, the writ petition is dismissed.

            Â