Telegraph Act | Compensation For Damages Not Confined To Initial Cutting Of Trees, But Any Continuing Causes Of Action: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has clarified that under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the compensation for damages sustained by landowners is not confined to the initial cutting of trees, but also if any further work in the property results in damages to the landowner.

"By using the terminology 'any damage' the legislature has consciously widened the landowners' right to claim compensation. The compensation for damage sustained is therefore not confined to the initial cutting of trees and drawing of lines. If the telegraph authority does any further work in the property after drawing the lines and such action results in the landowner sustaining damage, he can claim compensation, even if he was paid compensation for the damage sustained earlier. The above reasoning is supported by the concept of continuing cause of action, whereby a cause action once arisen will continue and go on, if the act complained of is continuously repeated. Yet another reason being that, every work done in a person's property by another without permission, infringes upon the owner's right to enjoy his property without let or hindrance," Justice V.G. Arun observed.

The Court in this case was seized with a batch of revision petitions by landowners seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded for the damages sustained due to the drawing of High Tension Electric Lines over their properties by the Power Grid Corporation of India.

Their pleas had initially been dismissed by the District Court on the ground that they were filed after three years of receipt of full compensation and hence were barred by limitation.

It was the case of the revision petitioners that as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a dispute regarding the sufficiency of compensation can arise only on payment of the full compensation.

The revision petitioners averred that during 2010-11 compensation towards the value of trees cut alone was paid and that it was only during 2017-18 that compensation towards diminution in land value was paid. They thus averred that in terms of Article 137, payment of full compensation had occurred only in 2017-18, and that the finding of the District Judge that the original petitions were barred by limitation, was thus erroneous.

The respondents however argued that the payment made in 2017-18 was only 'ex gratia' payment at the rate of 20% of the land, for the land area covered under the conductors, and not compensation. It was thus submitted that the period of three years ought to be calculated from the date of cutting of trees, and the District Judge had thus rightly dismissed the pleas.

The Court at the outset perused the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which details the scheme of payment of compensation to affected persons.

The Court discerned that the Corporation in this case had been issued with licence and vested with powers under the provisions of the Telegraph Act. The Court ascertained that it was in exercise of such powers that the Corporation had entered the properties of the revision petitioners, cut down trees, drew lines over and installed posts/towers in the properties.

It further noted that as per Section 10(d) of the Act, 1885, the telegraph authority ought to endeavour to do as little damage as possible to the property and pay full compensation for 'any damage' that was sustained, and that the same would also include any damage sustained by further work on the property.

The Court also explained the difference between 'compensation' which refers to compensation necessary for restoring any injured party to his former position, and 'ex gratia payment' which is payment made by one who recognises no legal obligation to pay, but makes the payment to avoid greater expense.

"Indisputably, the revision petitioners are conferred with the statutory right to claim compensation under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. As such, they could have demanded the compensation ex debito. In this context, it is also essential to note that the Government, while coming out with the special compensation package, was conscious of the landowners' right to claim compensation under the Act. That right cannot be taken away by terming the payment, towards diminution of land value, as ex gratia payment," the Court said, while holding the payment made by the Government as compensation. 

The Court thus ascertained that the limitation period of three years as regards any dispute regarding sufficiency of compensation, would therefore arise from the date the right to apply accrues.

"...the right to apply, as far as the revision petitioners are concerned, would accrue when the property sustained damage by cutting of trees or any further act resulting in the property sustaining damage. Their right to apply would also accrue when the compensation paid is inadequate. Hence, the revision petitioners could have filed the original petitions before the District Court, within three years of commission of the last act resulting in damage or three years from the date of payment of compensation," the Court observed.

Noting that the Court below had determined the limitation period from the date of cutting of trees, the Court added that the cardinal principle that the rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties ought to have been remembered. 

"In the cases under consideration, neither was any dilatory tactic adopted by the revision petitioners nor did they sleep over their rights. Being so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside," it held. 

The Court thus remitted the matters back to the District Court for fresh consideration. 

Counsel for Revision Petitioners: Advocates Babu Karukapadath, Vaisakhi V., M.A. Vaheeda Babu, P.U. Vinod Kumar, Arya Raghunath, T.M. Muhammed Musthaq, Ajwin P. Lalson, Karukapadath Wazim Babu, P. Lakshmi, Aysha E.M., and Shifana Kaise

Counsel for Respondents: Government Pleader Joshi Thanickamattom, and Standing Counsel for Power Grid Corporation Millu Dandapani

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 719 

Case Title: Maya Venu v. Power Grid Corporation of India & Ors. and other connected matters

Case Number: CRP NO. 48 OF 2021 and other connected cases

Click Here To Read/Download The Order