Malik Haji NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others vs WAPDA and others
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the civil revision of the petitioners on 18-1-1986 regarding a suit for compensation for damage to buildings and fruit trees caused by the installation of a 500 K.V. Transmission line over their land by WAPDA. The core legal question revolves around whether the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 regarding the determination of compensation by a District Judge apply to WAPDA as a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910, or if the matter is governed exclusively by the WAPDA Act, 1958. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the case involves the interpretation of the provisions of the WAPDA Act, 1958 and the Electricity Act, 1910 of substantial legal importance, and directed the appeal to be prepared on the existing record with interim stay to continue.
- Whether the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 regarding the determination of compensation by a District Judge apply to a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910?
- Does the WAPDA Act, 1958 exclude the application of compensation provisions under the Telegraph Act, 1885?
- Is a civil suit maintainable before a District Judge for damages caused by the installation of transmission lines by WAPDA?
- Electricity Act, 1910
- Section 51, Electricity Act, 1910
- Telegraph Act, 1885
- Section 16, Telegraph Act, 1885
- WAPDA Act, 1958
ORDER
1. ' S.USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed on 18-1-1986.
2. ' The respondents had installed a 500 K.V. Transmission line over the land of the petitioners due to which, according to them, their buildings and fruit trees worth Rs, 48,75,000.00 were damaged. The petitioners filed a suit for compensation before the District Judge, Multan which was contested by the respondents. On the pleadings of the parties the District Judge framed 7 issues out of which issue No, 6 was regarding the jurisdiction. The learned District Judge decided this issue in favour of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the petitioners vide order dated 6-11-1985. The petitioners went in revision before the High Court, wherein it was contended that WAPDA being a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910 and under section 51 of the said Act powers have been conferred on the licensee which can be exercised by the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885. It was also added that under section 16 para. 3 of the Telegraph Act a District Judge is competent to determine the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid to the aggrieved party.
3. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 regarding the sufficiency of compensation be determined by the District Judge cannot be extended to the instant case when a specific Statute like WAPDA Act is there. The petitioners were advised to approach the Deputy Commissioner for this purpose and the revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed in limine vide order dated 18-1-1986.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we have come to the conclusion that the case involves the question of interpretation of the provisions of WAPDA Act, 1958 and that of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is of substantial legal importance. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted.
5. ' Security for costs in the sum of Rs, 5,000.
6. ' Appeal is to be made ready on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.
7. ' Interim stay order already granted by this Court shall continue.