IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.52 of 2001 Date of decision : June 25, 2010 Power Grid Corporation …Petitioner. Versus Viney Kumar and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 25th June, 2001, of learned District Judge, Sirmour, whereby, in a petition, under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, compensation for the use of landed property of respondents Viney Kumar and Madhu Bala has been enhanced from Rs.5700/- to Rs.45,000/-. 2. Admitted facts are that the respondents have a mango orchard. An electricity transmission line has been taken through the land of the respondents. Also, the petitioner has erected a transmission tower on a portion of the land of the respondents. Total area of the land/orchard is stated to be 3 bighas 17 biswas. Respondents claimed Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… compensation for damage to the fruit trees and also to their land. They got the damage assessed from Horticulture Department, per which damage caused to the trees was to the tune of Rs.5700/-, as per Sardar Harbans Singh’s formula, based on the rates prevailing in 1966. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5700/- was offered to the respondents, as compensation, but they did not accept and filed petition, under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, before the District Judge. Petitioner contested that petition and pleaded that the compensation payable by it was not more than Rs.5700/-, as assessed by the Horticulture Department. 3. Learned District Judge, replying upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others versus Khazana Ram and others, 1998(1) SLC 479, has given seven time increase, over the compensation assessed by the Horticulture Department, vide report Ex. PW-1/A, on account of inflation from 1966 to the year 1996, when the transmission line was overlaid and has also ordered payment of Rs.5,000/-, on account of utilization of a portion of land in the construction of tower. Petitioner is aggrieved by the increase in compensation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 5. Report Ex. PW-1/A of Horticulture Department, per which compensation, on account of damage to the …3… trees, has been assessed at Rs.5700/-, is based on the formula of Sardar Harbans Singh, which was devised in the year 1966, based on the price index then prevailing. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others versus Khajana Ram and others (supra) held, on the basis of the price index prevailing in the year 1989, that there had been inflation to the extent of five-times from 1966 to 1989. Learned District Judge, in this case, has assumed that inflation must have gone up seven times in the year 1996, when the transmission line was overlaid, since the year 1966. There does not seem to be anything wrong with this course adopted by the learned District Judge, especially when it is in line with the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench. 7. Admittedly, a portion of the land of the respondents has been utilized in erecting a tower. No compensation was paid by the petitioner for the land utilized in construction of tower. District Judge has awarded only a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the land covered under the tower. This amount cannot be said to be unreasonably on the higher side. In view of the abovestated position, the petition is dismissed. June 25, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J