Jurisdiction Over Telegraph Act Compensation Disputes: Analysis of Recent Allahabad High Court Ruling

By: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

The Allahabad High Court has recently reaffirmed a significant jurisdictional principle concerning compensation disputes under the Telegraph Act, 1885. In a noteworthy judgment delivered on April 2, 2025, the division bench comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Vipin Chandra Dixit clarified that the District Judge, not the District Magistrate, holds exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate matters related to the adequacy and sufficiency of compensation under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act.

The case originated from agricultural landowners in Bareilly district whose properties were affected by the Northern Region System Strengthening Scheme-XXI, a transmission project approved by the Ministry of Power. The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) had erected transmission towers on the petitioners' lands after exercising powers conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide their representation regarding compensation discrepancies. They contended that farmers in the neighboring Rampur district had received enhanced compensation for similar circumstances, creating an inequitable situation that warranted rectification.

The Court's analysis centered on the intricate relationship between Sections 10(d), 16(3), and 18(2) of the Telegraph Act. Section 10(d) mandates compensation payment to affected property owners, while Section 16(3) specifically designates the District Judge as the adjudicatory authority for disputes concerning compensation adequacy. The Court emphasized that this jurisdictional allocation has been unequivocally affirmed by the Supreme Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 143.

Particularly noteworthy was the Court's examination of the 2015 Central Government policy regarding compensation for land damage caused by tower erection, implemented in Uttar Pradesh in November 2019. Although the policy implementation used the phrase "with immediate effect," the Court observed ambiguity regarding its retrospective applicability to previously completed projects or cases where compensation had already been disbursed.

The Court exercised judicial restraint on policy matters, reiterating that policy formulation falls within the executive domain, and judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or constitutional infringement. The bench articulated: "The Writ Court cannot substitute its wisdom with the policy making authorities unless it suffers from conditional infirmity."

Distinguishing between suo moto compensation under Section 10(d) and formal awards under Section 18(2), the Court determined that the payments previously made by PGCIL were voluntary acts under Section 10(d), not formal adjudications requiring magisterial intervention. Consequently, the appropriate recourse for dissatisfied landowners is to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act.

The Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition on grounds of maintainability, directing the petitioners to seek redress through the statutorily prescribed channel before the District Judge, thereby reinforcing the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies before invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to practitioners and litigants about the precise jurisdictional framework governing telegraph infrastructure compensation disputes, emphasizing the primacy of statutory remedies over direct constitutional challenges in matters where specific adjudicatory mechanisms have been legislatively prescribed.