Supreme Court sets aside Punjab & Haryana HC order on uniform compensation for transmission corridor; matters remitted for fresh hearing

A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal heard a batch of appeals arising from a common judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 24.02.2023. The appeals challenged awards of compensation under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for land used for erection of transmission towers and for a Right of Way (ROW) in a 100 km power transmission corridor executed for the “400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System‑PPP‑1” project.

The Court set aside the High Court’s uniform assessment of compensation and remitted the matters for fresh consideration, holding that the High Court had erred in treating distinct tracts across different districts as if they warranted a single rate based on collector rates for Sonepat alone. The Court emphasised that compensation required evidence specific to each location and that the Ministry of Power guidelines relied upon by the High Court were issued after the project notices and were not automatically binding in the absence of state adoption. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court concluded that “the order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained” and therefore set it aside and remitted the cases to the High Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Background Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. had issued an RFQ in 2009 and the project was awarded to Jhajjar K.T. Transco Pvt. Ltd., which subcontracted erection, commissioning and related services to Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. The transmission line ran about 100 km across Jhajjar, Rohtak, Bhiwani and Sonepat. Landowners filed applications under Section 16(3) of the 1885 Act disputing the sufficiency of compensation for tower base areas (the land beneath the tower legs) and for diminution in value across the ROW. The Trial Court (Additional District Judge, Sonepat) assessed compensation—inter alia applying an 85% rate of collector circle rate for tower base area—and awarded interest. The High Court, however, decided a bunch of petitions largely on materials relating to Sonepat and applied a uniform compensation (@85% of the collector rate for tower base area and up to 15% for ROW diminution) across cases, citing Ministry of Power (MOP) guidelines of 15.10.2015 and collector rates for village Rai. The contractor and HVPNL challenged the enhancement; landowners sought further enhancement in other appeals. The Supreme Court found multiple errors: the High Court had relied on Sonepat evidence alone, effectively treated writ petitions as original adjudication on facts, and applied post‑hoc administrative guidelines without regard to their temporal applicability or state adoption. The Court reiterated that assessment of fair value required evidence specific to each area, that Section 16(3) proceedings before the District Judge were final under the 1885 Act but were confined to judicial review in writ jurisdiction, and that the matters should be reconsidered by the High Court on proper evidence. The appeals were disposed of by setting aside the impugned High Court order and remitting the matters for fresh consideration; pending applications were disposed. The Court also directed the Registry to send a copy to the High Court Registrar General to consider uniform nomenclature for such proceedings, and directed the Registry to send the order to the Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice for consideration of whether a statutory appellate remedy should be provided against orders under Sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the 1885 Act.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10882–10892 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.14926–14942 & 18246–18247 of 2023/2025) Case Title: Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (now Kalpataru Projects International Ltd.) & Jhajjar K.T. Transco Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinod & Ors.; Jhajjar K.T. Transco Pvt. Ltd. v. Rati Ram & Ors.; Vinod & Ors. v. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel (for the Contractor/Appellant) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for landowners and for Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (names not specified in the judgment record)