Section 164 of the Electricity Act Saves Indian Telegraph Act Compensation Provisions Despite Repeal by Telecommunications Act

The petitioner, owner of several plots of land in Paschim Bardhaman, alleged that the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (WBSETCL) utilized their property to erect transmission towers and lay lines.

The petitioner claimed that severe damage was caused to the property and that WBSETCL failed to seek the "right of way" as mandated under Section 12 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.

WBSETCL contended that they exercised powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and had already finalized a crop compensation of ₹3,45,762/-, which the petitioner refused to collect.

The petitioner challenged the sufficiency of this compensation amount.

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which empowers the government to confer powers of a "telegraph authority" upon electricity licensees.

Section 60 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, specifically the saving clause in sub-section (3), which stipulates that Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, remains in force for cases under Section 164 of the Electricity Act despite the general repeal of the 1885 Act.

Section 10(d) of the 1885 Act mandates the payment of full compensation for damage.

Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act provides that disputes regarding the sufficiency of such compensation must be determined by the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the Telecommunications Act, 2023. It reasoned that Section 60(3) of the 2023 Act contains an express saving provision that maintains the applicability of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for electricity transmission projects initiated under Section 164 of the Electricity Act.

The Court found that since the WBSETCL was exercising powers as a telegraph authority, the statutory framework of Part III of the 1885 Act governed the proceedings.

Consequently, because the petitioner’s grievance focused solely on the "sufficiency" of the compensation determined for their "Shali" (agricultural) land, the court determined that the petitioner must follow the specific statutory procedure provided under Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act rather than seeking a writ remedy.

The Court directed that since the dispute concerns the sufficiency of compensation, the petitioner must approach the jurisdictional District Judge as per Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law.