Holding

The High Court’s uniform compensation assessment is unsustainable; compensation must be determined on a district‑specific basis, and the statutory scheme lacks a proper appellate remedy, warranting remand for fresh consideration.

Summary

The case concerned compensation disputes arising from the erection of transmission towers and power lines under a 400 kV project that traversed four districts in Haryana. Landowners claimed that the compensation awarded by the District Judges and upheld by the High Court was inadequate, while the contractor sought to limit the compensation. The High Court had applied a uniform compensation rate based on the collector's valuation for land in Sonepat to all lands, including those in Jhajjar, without considering district‑specific differences. The Supreme Court held that this methodology was legally untenable, that the High Court erred by treating the writ petitions as original trials, and that the statutory scheme under the Telegraph Act, 1885 provides no appeal against the District Judge’s order, creating a procedural gap. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, remitted the matters for fresh consideration with appropriate methodology, and disposed of the civil appeals. The judgment also directed the High Court and the Ministry of Law and Justice to examine the need for a statutory appeal mechanism and uniform nomenclature for such proceedings.

Issues considered

The adequacy and methodology of compensation assessment for land used as tower base area and right‑of‑way under the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Whether a uniform compensation rate can be applied to lands situated in different districts with varying characteristics.
The existence of a statutory appeal remedy against orders of the District Judge under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
The applicability of Ministry of Power guidelines issued after the relevant transactions.
The need for uniform nomenclature and procedural consistency for proceedings under the 1885 Act and similar statutes.

Legislation cited

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

LandownersEnhancement of compensationDamages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towersRemedy of appealDistrict JudgeTower Base AreaRight of Way corridorCollector rateSonepat districtJhajjar districtUniform compensation methodologyStatutory appeal gapUniform nomenclature

Judgment

[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, 2003.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1055

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

Case Law Cited
Janardhan Reddy and Others v. State, 1950 INSC 37 : [1950] 1
SCR 940 : AIR 1951 SC 124; The Kerala State Electricity Board,
Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, 1976 INSC 272 : [1977] 1 SCR
996 : AIR 1977 SC 282; Suhas H. Pophale v. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited and Its Estate Officer, 2014 INSC 92 : [2014] 2
SCR 480 : AIR 2014 SC 1509; State of Haryana and Another v.
Pala Ram and Others, 2012 SCC Online P&H 24551; Kerala SEB v.
Livisha, 2007 INSC 638 : [2007] 7 SCR 356 : (2007) 6 SCC 792;
M.L. Jaggi v. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and Ors., 1996
INSC 6 : [1996] 1 SCR 25 : (1996) 3 SCC 119 – referred to.

List of Acts
Telegraph Act, 1885; Electricity Act, 2003; Land Acquisition
Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952;
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; National Highways Act,
1956; Railways Act, 1989; Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957; Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

List of Keywords
Landowners; Enhancement of compensation; Damages suffered
by erection of transmission lines and towers; Remedy of appeal;
District Judge; Tower Base Area (land beneath four legs of the
tower) and the Right of Way corridor; Collector rate beneath the
tower area; District of Sonepat; District of Jhajjar; Land pertaining
to different villages falling in different districts; Uniform rate for
the entire transmission corridor; Methodology for assessing fair
compensation; Anomalies with reference to various timelines; Law
Commission of India; Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India; Uniformity in the nomenclature.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
10882-10888 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2023 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No(s). 21878,
1056 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

26406, 9495, and 28540 of 2017 in CR No(s). 3502, 3503 and
3830 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal No(s).10889-10890 and 10891-10892 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Arvind Gupta, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi
Agrawala, Manu Krishnan, Sunil Mittal, Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Amit
Sagar, Amit Kumar, Jimut Mohapatra, E. C. Agrawala.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv, Rakesh Dahiya,
Karan Singh, Akshat Jain, Praveen Kumar, Rn Mahlawat, Rajeev
Sharma, Arvind Gupta, Samar Vijay Singh, Nikunj Gupta, Ms.
Akanksha, Ms. Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Aman Dev Sharma,
Ms. Ishika Gupta, Sarthak Arya, Vaibhav Saini.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Table of Contents*

S. Particulars Paras Page
No.

1. Factual background 2–7 2–7

Civil Appeal No(s). 10882-10888 of 2025 5 – 5.1 4–5
[@SLP (C) No(s). 14936-14942/2023]

Civil Appeal No(s).10891-10892 of 2025 6 – 6.1 6
[@SLP (C) No(s).18246-18247 of 2025]

Civil Appeal No(s). 10889-10890 of 2025 7 – 7.1 6–7
[@SLP (C) No(s). 14926-14927/2023]

2. Regarding ‘Impugned Order’ 8 8

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1057

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

3. Arguments of the contractor 9 – 9.3 8 – 10
4. Arguments of the landowners 9.4 – 10 11
5. Discussion 11 – 20 11 – 20
6. Re-right of appeal 21 – 35 21 – 32
7. Need for uniformity in nomenclature of 36 32
cases
8. Relief on merits 37 – 37.1 32 – 33
9. Directions 38 – 39 33

1. Leave granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The present judgment shall dispose of a batch of appeals arising out
of a common judgment dated 24.02.2023 passed by the High Court1
whereby a bunch of nine matters2 were decided. The landowners
before this Court are seeking further enhancement of compensation
on account of damages suffered by erection of transmission lines
and towers, whereas the Contractor is before this Court, challenging
the amount of compensation awarded.
3. Briefly, basic facts of the case as are evident from the record are
that Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter, “HVPNL”),
a public company owned by the State Government initiated a power
transmission project, titled “400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission
System-PPP-1,” by issuing a Request for Quotation (RFQ) on
13.01.2009. Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited (hereinafter,
“JKTPL”) was selected as the lowest bidder for the transmission
project and was awarded the project under an Agreement dated
28.05.2010. Subsequently, JKTPL entered into a sub-contract for
erection, commissioning & other services with Kalpataru Power

1 High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
2 CWP No. 21878 of 2017; CWP No. 26406 of 2017; CR-3502-2017; CR-3503-2017; CR-1280-2020;
CR-2873-2021; CWP No. 9495 of 2017; CR-3830-2017; CWP No. 28570 of 2017.
1058 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Transmission Ltd. on 29.10.2010, the present appellant in some
of the appeals.
3.1 As is evident from the aforesaid contract executed between the
JKTPL and Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., total length of
transmission line is 100 km. The details thereof are as under:
• Jharli (Jhajjar) - Kabulpur (Rohtak) 400 KV D/C line
(Length: 35 km).
• Kabulpur (Rohtak) - Dipalpur (Sonepat) 400 KV D/C line
(Length: 64 km).
• Loop-in-Loop-out (LILO) of one circuit of Abdallapur -
Bawana 400 KV D/C line at Dipalpur (Sonipat)
(Length: 1 km).
3.2 The transmission line has passed through 4 districts in different
villages as is mentioned in the public notice dated 12.07.2010.3
The districts are Bhiwani, Jhajjar, Rohtak and Sonepat. The issue
arose regarding compensation to which the landowners may
be entitled to for the damages suffered on account of erection
of towers and drawing the power lines. The fact remains that
ownership of land is not transferred.
4. As there are certain glaring errors in the judgment of the High Court
deciding bunch of petitions pertaining to land falling in different
districts, to put the record straight we wish to narrate brief facts of
all the appeals.

Civil Appeal No(s).10882-10888 of 2025 (@SLP (C) No(s). 14936-
14942/2023)
5. These appeals arise out of common judgment of the High Court
wherein challenge was made to different judgments and decrees
passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Sonepat in 3 different
applications filed by landowners under Section 16(3) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.4 These three applications were registered as
Civil Suits bearing CIS No. CS/5/2016, titled as “Tara Chand and
Ors. versus Kalpa-Taru and Ors.”, CIS No. CS/6/2016 titled as “Vinod

3 Available in the record of the Trial Court in CS No. 6 of 2017 at page 267.
4 Hereinafter referred to as “the 1885 Act”.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1059

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

and Another versus Kalpa-Taru and Ors.” and CIS No. CS/7/2016
titled as “Pramod Kumar etc. versus Ministry of Power etc.”. The Ld.
Additional District Judge, Sonepat awarded compensation @ 85% of
collector rate i.e., ₹85,00,000/- per acre along with interest @ 8%,
for the tower base area (land beneath the four legs of the tower).
5.1 Both the parties being aggrieved by the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court, challenged the same before the High Court.
Two Civil Writ Petitions were filed by the landowners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India (CWP-9495-2017 and
CWP-21878-2017) seeking enhancement of compensation.
Whereas the contractor filed three Civil Revision Petitions
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (CR-3502-2017,
CR-3503-2017 and CR-3830-2017). Two Civil Writ Petitions
(CWP-26406-2017 and CWP-28570-2017) were filed by
HVPNL, Panipat challenging the quantum of compensation
awarded.

Civil Appeal No(s). 10891-10892 of 2025 (SLP (C) No.18246-
18247 of 2025)
6. The aforesaid appeals have been filed against the judgment of the
High Court in CWP-21878-2017 and CWP-9495-2017 and the same
judgment is under challenged in Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(C)
No.14936/2023 and 14940/2023 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos.14936-14942 of
2023) seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded.
The land pertains to the District Sonepat.
6.1 Since the parties in the aforesaid appeals are common and
are being represented, we do not consider it appropriate to
issue formal notice in these appeals and the same are being
disposed of along with the bunch of appeals.

Civil Appeal No(s).10889-10890 of 2025 (@SLP (C) No. 14926-
14927/2023)
7. Challenge in present appeals is also to the same common judgment of
the High Court dated 24.02.2023. Land involved forms part of district
Jhajjar. Before the High Court, two Civil Revision Petitions bearing
CR-1280-2020 and CR-2873-2021 were filed by the contractor and
the landowner, respectively. The issue again pertained to assessment
of fair compensation on account of utilization of land owned by
1060 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the landowners for erection of tower or drawing power lines. An
application was filed by the landowner under Section 16(3) of the
1885 Act bearing CM No. 516 of 2013 titled “Rati Ram versus State
of Haryana and Ors.” before the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar.
The Trial Court initially vide order dated 07.11.2016 awarded total
compensation of ₹30,00,000/- under various heads. The aforesaid
order was challenged by the contractor before the High Court by filing
CR No. 3420 of 2017. The High Court vide order dated 19.08.2019
set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded the case back
for determination of compensation afresh. On remand, the Trial Court
vide order dated 20.12.2019 assessed the total compensation at
₹26,12,000/- to be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum from
April 2011 till realization. The compensation was awarded under
various heads.
7.1 The order passed by the Trial Court in CM No. 516 of 2013
seems to be erroneous on the face of it. In paragraph 6 of the
order, documentary evidence led by the landowners has been
referred to. There are five exhibits and three documents which
have been marked. In paragraph 18 of the order passed by the
Trial Court, reference has been made to Exhibits P-5 to P-8 as
sale deeds, which are not mentioned in paragraph 6 as such.
Further Exhibit P-5 is stated to be an attested copy of the Notice
dated 07.12.2011 of HVPNL. Further, the manner in which the
compensation has been assessed cannot be made out. The
High Court has failed to notice this aspect of the matter.

REGARDING IMPUGNED ORDER
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments/orders of the Trial Court,
at Sonepat and Jhajjar both parties filed petitions before the High
Court. While deciding the bunch of petitions, the High Court noticed
the facts pertaining to land in district Sonepat only and assessed
the compensation in all cases. The facts pertaining to district Jhajjar
were not even touched. May be counsels did not argue. A uniform
compensation @ 85% of the collector rate beneath the tower area,
which was determined at ₹1.50 crores per acre was awarded to the
landowners. Besides this, for diminishing the value of land across the
width of Right of Way (ROW), 15% of the value of land was awarded
as compensation. It was on account of imposition of restrictions on
utilization thereof.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1061

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

ARGUMENTS OF THE CONTRACTOR
9. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Contractor challenged the judgment of the High Court, whereby
the damages payable to the landowners were further enhanced.
He submitted that there was no basis for assessment of huge
compensation on account of use of the land for erection of towers
and drawing of the power lines. The area beneath the transmission
lines could be utilized by the landowners, however, subject to certain
restrictions. The ownership of the land is not transferred. Section 10 of
the 1885 Act authorizes the authority concerned to erect towers and
draw power lines, for which only right to use is acquired, warranting
compensation to that extent only. The assessment of compensation
by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which was further enhanced
by the High Court, was totally on erroneous grounds and without any
basis. Some studies related to effects of electromagnetic waves on
the yield of crops, which may be available on internet, have been
relied upon by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which in fact,
have no basis and was not even confronted to any of the parties,
before the same were relied upon. It was not even the case of the
landowners as the same was not part of the evidence led.
9.1 It was further argued that the towers were erected and the power
lines were drawn, running into about 100 kms falling in Jhajjar,
Sonipat and other districts. In the case in hand, the value of
land was equivalized for the stretch of the land passing under
the transmission lines falling in different districts, regardless of
the fact whether the towers and lines were situated close to
some National Highway or State Highways or running through
agricultural areas having no road connectivity as such. Thus,
the assessment of compensation at uniform rate for the entire
land cannot be legally justified.
9.2 Reliance on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power,
Government of India bearing No.3/7/2015-Trans (“MOP
Guidelines”) dated 15.10.2015 is totally misplaced in these
cases for the reason that these were issued much after the
transmission line in question had already been drawn and
further these were required to be adopted by the concerned
State/UTs. It is the case of State of Haryana, that the aforesaid
guidelines had not been adopted, hence, invocation of those
1062 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

guidelines for the purpose of assessment of compensation was
totally uncalled for.
9.3 In support of the argument, reliance was placed upon judgments
of this Court in Janardhan Reddy and others vs. State,5 The
Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma6
and Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
and Its Estate Officer.7

ARGUMENTS OF THE LANDOWNERS
9.4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners submitted
that there is no error in the assessment of compensation by the
High Court on account of damages suffered by them. Hence,
the appeals filed by the contractor deserve to be dismissed.
As far as the appeals filed by the landowners are concerned,
the compensation awarded by the High Court, deserves to be
enhanced further. For the land beneath the legs of the towers, the
landowners are entitled to 100% compensation and not @ 85%
of the value of the land since such area is rendered completely
non-utilizable. Further, even for the land areas falling under the
overhead power lines (Right of Way Corridor), lot of restrictions
are imposed on the use of land, hence, compensation on that
account also deserves to be enhanced.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
records.

DISCUSSION
11. The facts of the cases in brief have already been referred to in
paragraph 3 to 7 of the judgment, hence, are not being repeated.
The land was acquired for execution of the project titled, “400 KV
Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1”. Transmission line has
the total length of 100 km passing through four districts, namely,
Jhajjar, Rohtak, Bhiwani and Sonepat. We have matters before
this Court pertaining to portions of the land utilized for the project
which fall in districts Sonepat and Jhajjar. The first error committed

5 1950 INSC 37 : AIR 1951 SC 124
6 1976 INSC 272 : AIR 1977 SC 282.
7 2014 INSC 92 : AIR 2014 SC 1509.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1063

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

by the High Court, which is apparent on the face of it is that cases
pertaining to areas falling in two different districts have been decided
by a common judgment while referring to the material with reference
to district Sonepat only.
12. Another error committed by the High Court in the impugned judgment
is that the matter was dealt with as if it was a writ petition filed on the
original side dealing with an issue raised for the first time. Rather,
challenge before the High Court in the writ petition filed under Article
226 and some petitions filed under Article 227 was to the judgments
of the Trial Court, which were delivered on appreciation of evidence.
The High Court, merely on the basis of pleadings in the High Court
stating that the same has not been denied, has recorded findings.
13. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the High Court
solely and heavily relied on the findings of the Trial Court in the
case of district Sonepat. The High Court while quoting paragraph
23 of the Trial Court’s judgment in Sonepat matter, observed that
the contractor had installed towers and high-tension wires on the
landowners’ land but had not paid any compensation for the land
covered under the poles of the towers or for the diminution of value
of such land, although some compensation was paid for damage
to the crops at the time of erection. The Trial Court had opined that
this action of erecting towers and high-tension wires without paying
compensation for the land covered or its diminished value was in
violation of Articles 21, 39A, and 41 of the Constitution of India.
14. The High Court noticed the location of the land, to be part of the
National Capital Region and is stated to be situated merely 6 acres/
killas from the G.T. Road, in an area where land prices had already
doubled. While holding that this was not a case of land acquisition
stricto senso, but merely the right of way is taken, the High Court
proceeded to examine the fair amount of compensation to which the
landowners were entitled to. The Court relied on the guidelines issued
by the Ministry of Power, Government of India on 15.10.2015. As far
as the consent of the State was concerned, it was deemed to have
been given since the State had not objected against the guidelines
or submitted any representative comments against the same when
these were circulated by the Ministry of Power to all the States/UTs.
15. We are not approving the manner adopted by the High Court
for assessment of compensation. The fact remains that the
1064 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

compensation has been calculated on the basis of collector’s rate,
which will be a matter of evidence pertaining to each area where
the land is situated. The collector rate which has been referred to
in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court pertained to
only district Sonepat. Apparently, there was no evidence on record
produced by the landowners to that extent. As is evident from the
impugned order passed by the High Court, three sale deeds, Exhibits
P-9, P-11 and P-12 were produced by the landowners pertaining to
district Sonepat. These however, pertained to village Livaspur and
Rathdhana and not to village Rai to which the land belonged to.
The High Court considered the matter as if it was dealing with the
same on original side as a writ petition. While observing that the
allegations made by the landowners in the writ petitions had not been
denied, the High Court relied upon the collector’s rate as pleaded
by the landowners. Finally, rejecting the valuation shown in various
sale deeds produced by the landowners, the High Court referred to
the collector’s rate fixed for village Rai at ₹1.50 crores per acre and
awarded compensation @ 85% thereof for the Tower Base Area and
compensation @15% towards diminution of land value in the width
of ROW Corridor. The aforementioned compensation was ordered to
carry interest @ 8% per annum. Although the Collector’s award was
not part of the formal evidence, the Court relied upon it, noting that
the pleading to that effect had not been denied by the contractors.
16. No doubt, the landowners whose land is utilized for right of way by
the contractor for drawing the high-tension lines and for erection
of towers are entitled to be compensated adequately, but how that
compensation is to be assessed is the moot question, which the
Trial Court as well as the High Court have failed to appreciate. The
basic issue which lost sight of was that it was not a chunk of land
located at one place for which compensation could be assessed
by considering the value of the land in the vicinity. It was a belt of
land running into 100 kms. While referring to the facts of one case
that the suit land forms part of the National Capital Region and is
located at a distance of 6 acres/killas from G.T. Road, compensation
for the land question, which is located in two different districts, was
assessed at the same rate. However, this locational advantage
cannot be uniformly applied to the entire transmission corridor, as
the transmission line is running through 100 kms in different districts
and villages with vastly different characteristics. Some portion of
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1065

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

land may be close to a National Highway or State Highway or some
other roads; some may be close to Abadi, whereas some portion of
land may be falling within rural areas where the land is used only
for agricultural purpose and with no connectivity by roads as such.
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. Nothing was pointed out at the time of
hearing regarding status of any other petition filed by the landowners
at any other place seeking compensation. In the absence thereof
we are unable to examine as to what method was adopted therein.
16.1 A somewhat similar issue came before the High Court in State
of Haryana and Another vs. Pala Ram and Others.8 That case
concerned acquisition of land for the construction of BML Hansi
Butana Multipurpose Link Channel, however, the principles laid
down therein may be relevant to the present matter. In that
case, the entire channel length was 108 km, with land forming
part of 52 villages across four districts. The High Court laid
down the methodology for assessing compensation in such
cases. It may be relevant for the reason that correct method
is to firstly assess the value of land and thereafter determine
the compensation payable to the landowners.
17. This Court observed in the case of Kerala SEB v. Livisha,9 that
although there cannot be any hard and fast rule to determine
compensation in cases of telegraph lines and electrical lines, certain
factors should be looked into. The observations of the court in the
aforesaid case are extracted hereinbelow:
“7. We may, however, notice that in one of the impugned
judgments, a learned Single Judge of the High Court held:
“The court below has fixed the land value at Rs 20,000
per cent and the rate of diminution at 40%. Taking
Exhibits A-1 and A-2 produced, the lower court is
correct in fixing the land value at Rs 20,000 per cent,
(sic which) cannot be the reasonable land value in
this case. Hence I fix the land value in this case at
Rs 30,000 per cent. So also the rate of diminution

8 2012 SCC Online P&H 24551.
9 (2007) 6 SCC 792 : 2007 INSC 638.
1066 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in land value is fixed at 50% instead of 40% fixed
by the court below. The order passed by the court
below is modified accordingly.”
No reason has been assigned in support of the above
view. The materials placed on record were not analysed.
Why such a view was taken also does not appear from
the records of the case. The amount of compensation is
required to be determined keeping in view the purpose and
object of the statute. There cannot be any fixed formula
therefor or the other. Although undoubtedly one formula laid
down may assist the Board and/or the Reference Court to
apply the same, but there cannot be a hard-and-fast rule
in this behalf. A fixed formula for determining the amount
of compensation although may make the task of the Land
Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court easier but in
our opinion each case is required to be taken on its own
merit. We may hasten to add that the purpose and object
of the Act and the methodology laid down therein for the
purpose thereof should be the guiding factor.
(emphasis supplied)

x x x
9. Both telegraph lines and electrical lines are required to
be drawn over the agricultural lands and/or other properties
belonging to third parties. In drawing such lines, the entire
land cannot be acquired but the effect thereof would be
diminution of value of the property over which such line
is drawn.
10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high
voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line
thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line
passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of
the land and other similar relevant factors in our opinion
would be determinative. The value of the land would also
be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in
a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the
property for the purpose for which the same was meant
to be used.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1067

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

18. Certain other arguments have also been noticed by the High Court
regarding adoption of MOP Guidelines dated 15.10.2015 regarding
assessment of compensation for the Tower Base Area (land beneath
four legs of the tower) and the ROW Corridor. In the case in hand,
sole reliance of the landowners is on the MOP Guidelines dated
15.10.2015. The question arises as to whether these guidelines
are applicable, even assuming the deemed consent was there, as
opined by the High Court. The notification in the present case was
published on 12.07.2010. Even the notice regarding erection of
towers and drawing of power lines was issued to the landowners
on 27.12.2011 and they had filed petition under Section 16(3) of the
1885 Act before the District Judge on 06.04.2012. Meaning thereby,
everything happened much before the aforesaid guidelines were
issued. Paragraph 4 of the guidelines clearly provides that States
and Union Territories were requested to take suitable decisions
regarding adoption of the guidelines, considering that acquisition of
land is a State subject. According to these guidelines, compensation
for the area beneath the four legs of a tower is fixed at 85% of
the circle rate to be determined by the District Magistrate or any
other competent authority. For the Right of Way (ROW) corridor
falling under the transmission lines, the maximum compensation
provided is 15% of the land value. The use of the word “maximum”
is of relevance. Further, whether administrative instructions could
control the judicial power of the Court ? The question needs to be
addressed.
19. The High Court failed to appreciate the fundamental fact that land
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. Even in the case in
hand, facts only pertaining to district Sonepat have been discussed.
From Page 24 of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the land
involved even in those cases, is located at different places, some
close to Highway, whereas some at a distance.
20. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the order passed by
the High Court cannot be legally sustained, hence, the same is set
aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh
consideration in accordance with law.
1068 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Re-RIGHT OF APPEAL
21. During the course of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for
the parties referred to various factual matrix, pointing out errors not
only in the judgment of the Trial Court but also of the High Court. It
was also submitted that the factual aspects and the evidence led by
the parties was not properly appreciated by the High Court. When the
matter was examined, this Court also noticed these facts and found
it appropriate to give opportunity to the counsel for the appellant to
assist the court on the issue as to whether there should be some
remedy of appeal against order passed by the District Judge, so that
the facts of the case could be examined in detail. The appellants
have submitted a note.
22. The case in hand pertains to erection of towers and drawing the
power lines, for which right of way was taken. There being no
independent provision available for the same in the Electricity Act,
2003, the provisions of the 1885 Act have been adopted in terms
of Section 164 of the 2003 Act.
23. Section 10 of the 1885 Act confers powers on the Telegraph Authority
to place and maintain the telegraph lines and posts. Proviso (b) to
the aforesaid section provides that the Central Government shall not
acquire any right other than the right of user in the property upon
which the authority places any telegraph line or post. Clause (d) of
the proviso provides for payment of compensation. Relevant part of
Section 10 of the 1885 Act is extracted below:
“10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain
telegraph lines and posts.—The telegraph authority may,
from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line
under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any
immovable property:
Provided that—

(a) xxx
(b) the Central Government shall not acquire any right
other than that of user only in the property under, over,
along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority
places any telegraph line or post;

(c) xxx
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1069

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this
section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage
as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers
in respect of any property other than that referred to in
clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons
interested for any damage sustained by them by reason
of the exercise of those powers.”
23.1 Section 16 of the 1885 Act deals with assessment and payment
of compensation. Relevant portion of the aforesaid section is
extracted below:
“16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and
disputes as to compensation, in case of property other
than that of a local authority.—

(1) & (2) xxx
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of
the 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
jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to
receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which
the persons interested arc entitled to share in it, the
telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District
Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where
all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the
amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been
determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the
District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing
such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine
the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as
the case may be, the proportions in which the persons
interested are entitled to share in it.
(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge
under sub section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the
right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any
1070 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority,
from the person who has received the same.”
23.2 On a perusal of Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act, it is evident
that in case of dispute regarding sufficiency of compensation,
application can be filed before the District Judge, within whose
jurisdiction the property is situated. However, the 1885 Act
does not provide any timeline within which such an application
can be filed, nor does it specify the starting point of limitation
for the purpose.
23.3 Similarly, Section 16(4) of the aforementioned Act provides
for resolution of disputes inter se the parties with reference
to their entitlement to compensation. In such situation, the
authority is required to deposit the amount of compensation
with the District Judge, who will finally determine the rights
of the parties.
23.4 Section 16(5) provides that any order passed by the District
Judge under sub-sections (3) or (4) shall be final, thereby
precluding any appeal. The same cannot be challenged before
Civil Court. Only extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court
can be invoked, wherein normally the findings of facts are
not disturbed, and evidence is not reappreciated. The High
Court proceeds only on undisputed facts under its power of
judicial review.
24. Section 7-B of the 1885 Act talks of arbitration of disputes and sub-
section (2) provides that the award of the arbitrator appointed under
sub-section (1) thereof shall be conclusive between the parties to the
dispute and shall not be questioned in any court. Meaning thereby,
there is finality attached to the same. While dealing with the scope
of challenge to an award passed under section 7-B of the 1885 Act,
to which finality has been attached, this Court in M.L. Jaggi Versus
Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. and Ors.,10 opined that in such
circumstances, the only available remedy to a party aggrieved by such
an award is to seek judicial review by way of writ petition. The High
Court will not sit in appeal over the award but will only examine its
correctness and legality within the limited confines of judicial review.

10 1996 INSC 6 : (1996) 3 SCC 119
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1071

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

25. To complete the narration with reference to the scheme of the 1885
Act, we may add that Section 15 of the aforesaid Act provides for
resolution of disputes between the telegraph authority and a local
authority. An appeal from such resolution by a designated officer,
has been provided to the Central Government.
26. As evident from the facts of the case and is a matter of common
knowledge, assessment of fair value of land requires evidence to
be led by both parties. Based on such evidence, value of land is
determined. This factor is equally relevant for assessing compensation
for the land coming beneath four legs of the towers or under the
power lines as ROW is taken. If crops are standing on the land, for
assessment of value thereof, or the quantum of damages suffered,
evidence will be required. Even if the MOP guidelines issued by
the Ministry of Power, Government of India are to be considered,
there may still be issues regarding the rates fixed by the Collector
for a particular area. This can also be subject matter of dispute.
Furthermore, for determining the rights of various parties to receive
compensation in case there is inter se dispute, certain amount of
evidence would be required.
27. In the present case as well, some parties invoked Article 226 of the
Constitution, whereas others filed petitions invoking Article 227 of
the Constitution. This is solely because no proper appellate remedy
has been provided. The only scope of interference in exercise of
extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court would be within the
parameters of judicial review.
28. If we examine the scope of first appeal under any statute, entire case
is open for re-hearing, both on questions of facts and on law. The
First Appellate Court is required to address all the issues considered
in the order impugned and decide the same by giving reasons. It
is in fact continuation of the original proceedings. The power of
the First Appellate Court is co-extensive with that of the trial court,
unless the scope thereof is limited by the statute which provides for
the appellate jurisdiction.
29. As is evident from the provisions of the 1885 Act, there is no
amendment in Sections 10 and 16, ever since the same was enacted.
It may be noted that when the 1885 Act was enacted, there was
limited development and there may have been few cases requiring
determination of compensation under the aforementioned Act. The
1072 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

value of the land was also in peanuts. However, with the rapid pace
of development in the electrical and power sector, the volume of
litigation has increased significantly, necessitating assessment of
compensation under the 1885 Act.
30. Besides there being no appellate remedy, we find that there are
other gaps as well in the statutory scheme.
30.1 A reading of the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of 1885 Act
reveals that in addition to no remedy of appeal being provided
against the order passed by the District Judge, no timelines have
been provided regarding payment of compensation to the affected
parties after the right under Section 10(d) is exercised by the
competent authority; the time during which any party can raise
grievance about sufficiency of compensation so assessed. The
provisions are also silent about the time during which a landowner
can file an application before the District Judge in case sufficiency
of compensation is disputed. The Act also does not provide the
rate at which interest is to be paid to the landowners in case
there is any delay in payment of compensation. 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.
31. In the case in hand, certain rights were taken by the authority
concerned for the erection of electric towers and drawing the power
lines and not the ownership of the land. There are many different
statutes under which the ownership of the land is acquired by the
competent authority in exercise of powers conferred under those
statutes. Wherever such a power is exercised, the natural corollary is,
the landowner is to be adequately compensated. Detailed procedure
and timelines for different actions have been provided under those
statutes.
31.1 If we consider the provisions of erstwhile Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, procedure as well as timelines had been provided
for various actions to be taken in case there is acquisition of
land, even remedy of appeal against the award of the District
Judge/Additional District Judge had also been provided. Rate
of interest was also prescribed.
31.2 Similar is the position under the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1073

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

Resettlement Act, 2013. Detailed procedures have been
provided in case any party is not satisfied with the compensation
awarded. Matter can be referred to the Authority as established
under Section 51 of the aforesaid Act. Against an order passed
by the Authority, an appeal is provided to the High Court. The
rate of interest on account of delay in payment of compensation
has also been prescribed.
31.3 Further, in the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
Property Act, 1952, the adequacy of compensation is assessed
through the process of arbitration. Though provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199611 have not been made
applicable, remedy of appeal to the High Court has been
provided.
31.4 Under the National Highways Act, 1956, the dispute regarding
adequacy of compensation is referred to arbitration and the
provisions of the 1996 Act have been made applicable, hence,
the remedies available thereunder could be availed of.
31.5 Similar provisions are present in the Railways Act, 1989.
Reference can also be made to the provisions of Coal Bearing
Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
32. It is noticed that under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 196212, the provisions are
similar to the case in hand. In fact, Section 10 of the aforesaid Act
is pari-materia to Section 16 of the 1885 Act. District Judge of the
concerned district is the competent Court, whose jurisdiction can be
invoked to challenge the sufficiency of compensation. As per Section
10(6) of the aforesaid Act, order of the District Judge is final.
33. Needless to add here that, in the process of determination of
compensation, evidence will have to be led by the parties. Unless
statutory remedy of appeal is provided where all issues of law and
facts can be re-examined, any other remedy may be illusionary. As
is noticed in the facts of the present case, the remedies availed by
different parties were different. In some of the cases, writ petitions
were filed by the landowners under Article 226 of the Constitution

11 Hereinafter, “1996 Act”
12 Hereinafter referred to as “the Petroleum Act”.
1074 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of India, impugning the judgment and decree of the civil court and
in some of the cases, the contractor as well as the landowners filed
petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reappreciation
of evidence in those proceedings may be an issue. Remedy may
not be effective and can become illusionary.
34. Not only this, but the anomalies as have been referred to in the
paragraph 30 with reference to various timelines as well, the matter
needs to be examined.
35. In the aforesaid background, we are of the opinion that these issues
need to be examined by the Law Commission of India and the Ministry
of Law and Justice, Government of India, so as to determine whether
a statutory remedy of appeal should be provided against judgments/
orders passed under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the 1885 Act, the
Petroleum Act or any other similar statute.

NEED FOR UNIFORMITY IN NOMENCLATURE OF CASES
36. Section 16(3) of 1885 Act, provides that an application can be
filed before the District Judge in case of a dispute related to
compensation. In district Sonepat, such an application was registered
and numbered as a Civil Suit where a judgment and decree has
been passed. Whereas in district Jhajjar, the same was registered
as a Civil Miscellaneous Application and only judgment has been
passed. There is need to bring uniformity in the nomenclature to
be assigned to these kinds 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.

RELIEF ON MERITS
37. For the reasons mentioned above, in our view, the order passed
by the High Court cannot be legally sustained, hence, the same is
set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for
fresh consideration in accordance with law. The civil appeals are
accordingly disposed of. Keeping in view the issues involved, we
request the High Court to make an effort to take up the matters
expeditiously.
37.1 Pending application(s), if any, are accordingly disposed of.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1075

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known as
Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) v. Vinod and Ors. Etc.

DIRECTIONS
38. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana for placing the same before Hon’ble
Chief Justice for taking the appropriate steps in terms of observations
made in paragraph 36 above.
39. The Registry of this Court shall forthwith send a copy of this order to
the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of India to examine the issue and take appropriate steps.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain