MESSRS. MINING ASSOCIATES vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
W.P.A. 9886 of 2026
Messrs. Mining Associates
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner
For the WBSETCL
: Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee
Mr. Chiranjib Sinha
Mr. Anubhav Khastagir
: Mr. Sumit Kr. Panja
Mr. Sumit Ray
: 06/05/2026
Heard on
: 06/05/2026
Judgment on
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. :
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plots of land being Dag
Nos.225, 200 and 224 along with other adjoining plots at
Mouza-Barodhemo, J.L. No.5 under Police Station-Asansol
(South) in the District of Paschim Bardhaman.
3. Petitioner alleges that the authorities of the West Bengal State
Electricity Transmission Company Limited (for short
2
“WBSETCL”) has utilised the portion of the said property for the
purpose of erection of the tower and have also caused severe
damage to the property of the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that
no compensation has yet been paid to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that while carrying out the work of erection of towers
and laying down of transmission lines WBSETCL did not comply
with the provisions laid down under Section 12 of the
Telecommunications Act, 2023 (for short “2023 Act”). Mr.
Banerjee submits that the authorities of the WBSETCL did not
seek the right of way for telecommunication network across the
aforesaid property of the petitioner as mandated under sub-
section (1) of Section 12 of the 2023 Act.
5. Mr. Panja, learned advocate representing the WBSETCL submits
that the said authority exercises its powers under the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short “1885 Act”) for the purpose of
carrying out the work relating to placing of electric lines or
electric plant for the transmission of electricity in the light of the
provisions contained in Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
(for short “2003 Act”). He submits that the provisions of the
2023 Act shall not apply to cases pertaining to laying down of
transmission lines under Section 164 of the 2003 Act in view of
the saving clause under sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the 2023
Act. Mr. Panja submits that the petitioner was requested to
3
attend the office of the concerned authority for the purpose of
accepting the amount on account of crop compensation but the
petitioner has failed to attend the office of the concerned
authority.
6. In reply, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is not satisfied with the
amount determined on account of compensation.
7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
perused the material placed.
8. Record reveals that the petitioner was requested to allow
construction of 220 KV transmission towers on certain plots
within Mouza-Borodhemo by a letter dated June 6, 2024. It is
not in dispute that the work of construction has already been
completed in the meantime.
9. Record further reveals that the petitioner was requested by a
memo dated March 25, 2025 to collect the crop compensation
amount which has been finalized for the damage during the
tower construction work on the land of the petitioner.
10. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
would contend that since the petitioner is not satisfied with the
determination of the compensation amount, the amount has not
been accepted by the petitioner.
11. Section 164 of the 2003 Act states that the Appropriate
Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric
4
lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for
the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications
necessary for the proper co-ordination of work, confer upon any
public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the
business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such
conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate
Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers
which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with
respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the
purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the
Government or to be so established or maintained.
12. The authorities of the WBSETCL exercised the power of the
Telegraph authority in the case on hand for the purpose of
placing the transmission lines and for installation of a
transmission tower on the plots in question.
13. Section 60 of the 2023 Act deals with the repeal of certain acts
and savings. Sub-section (1) of Section 60 states that subject to
the other provisions of this section, the enactments namely, the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy
Act, 1933 are hereby repealed.
14. Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the 2023 Act states that the
provisions of Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall
continue to apply to all cases pertaining to laying down of
5
transmission lines under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
as if the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has not been repealed, and
the provisions of Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall
continue in force with reference to Section 164 of the Electricity
Act, 2003 till such time as Section 164 of the Electricity Act,
2003 is amended.
15. As observed hereinbefore that the authorities of the WBSETCL
exercises its powers under Section 164 of the 2003 Act. Thus, in
view of the provisions laid down under sub-section (3) of Section
60 of the 2023 Act, the applicability of the provisions of Part-III
of the 1885 Act has been saved on a conjoint reading of sub-
sections (1) and (3) of the 2023 Act.
16. Part-III of the 1885 Act starts with Section 10 of the 1885 Act
which deals with the power of the telegraph authority to place
and maintain telegraph lines and posts.
17. Clause (d) of Section 10 of the 1885 Act states that in exercise of
the powers conferred by that 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.
18. It is not the case of the either of the parties that the property
falls within clause (c) of Section 10 of the 1885 Act. Therefore,
6
in the light of the provisions contained in Section 10(d) of the
1885 Act, the persons interested should be entitled to damage
sustained by them by reason of the exercise of the powers by the
concern authority.
19. On a query of the Court, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that
the classification of the plot in question has been recorded as
“Shali” meaning thereby “agricultural” in the Record of Rights.
20. From the communication made by the Additional Chief
Engineer, Durgapur Field Zonal Office, WBSETCL dated March
25, 2025, it is evident that crop compensation of Rs.3,45,762/-
has been finalized for the damage during tower construction
work on the land in question. The petitioner alleges that the
compensation amount determined by the concern authority is
insufficient.
21. Section 16 of the 1885 Act also falls under Part-III of the 1885
Act. Thus, the provisions of Section 16 of the 1885 Act shall
squarely apply to a case where the power under Section 164 of
the 2003 Act has been exercised.
22. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the 1885 Act deals with a
dispute as to the sufficiency of the compensation. It states that
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
7
the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is
situate, be determined by him.
23. Since the petitioner is raising a dispute as to the sufficiency of
the compensation amount determined by the authorities under
Section 10(d) of the 1885 Act, the petitioner has to avail of the
remedy provided under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the 1885
Act.
24. For all the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition stands
disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate authority in accordance with law in case the
petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation amount determined
by the authority under Section 10(d) of the 1885 Act.
25. There will be no order as to costs.
26. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
Item No.13
Court No.-19
Aritra