Adequacy of transmission-line damage compensation must be challenged before the District Court under Section 16(3).

The petitioner owned two acres in Survey No. 199/*/4 at Alagi (B) Village.

The respondents erected an electricity tower and laid a high-tension line across the land for the Bhima Lift Irrigation Project.

The petitioner claimed that, although damages had been paid for the land, compensation for a farm pond (Krushihonda) on it remained unpaid or inadequate.

He challenged the Executive Engineer’s rejection of his representation and sought payment under clause 8 of the Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings dated 12 February 2024.

The respondents produced a pro forma bill indicating payment of ₹7,02,698 towards the farm pond.

1. Whether the petitioner could obtain further compensation for the farm pond by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court

2. Whether the petitioner’s remedy for disputing the amount of compensation was an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, before the District Court

Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 provides a remedy for a person aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined for damage caused in the exercise of powers under the Act: the dispute may be referred to the District Judge.

The Court stated that a claim that compensation for a farm pond is inadequate should be pursued through a miscellaneous petition before the District Court, rather than through a writ petition.

The respondents also relied on *Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. M/s Abhishek Developers and Ors.*, W.P. No. 1203/2022, decided on 14 February 2025; the judgment records that reliance but does not set out or analyse the precedent’s rule.

The Court noted that the respondents had produced a pro forma bill indicating payment of ₹7,02,698 towards the farm pond, while the petitioner maintained that compensation was unpaid or inadequate.

It did not determine whether the amount was in fact received or whether it was sufficient.

Instead, it held that, if the petitioner disputed the compensation payable, Section 16(3) supplied the appropriate route for seeking higher compensation before the District Court; accordingly, the dispute was not resolved on its merits in the writ proceeding.

It directed that any such petition be filed before the District Court within four weeks of receipt of the order, if the petitioner so advised.