IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4235 of 2025 Decided on 24th March 2025 Kuram Dutt …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.4 and 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondents No.4 and 5, respectively. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2 (i) “Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the resondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and acquire the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.52/49/5 in Mohal Kotla, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh as per Jamabandi for the year 2014-15 details whereof have been given in the petition in accordance with law w.e.f. the date of possession of the land was taken by the respondents. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of the land and for damages caused to the land of the petitioner with all consequential amounts and benefits w.e.f. the date of the possession of the land was taken by the respondents along with interest for delayed payment. (iii) In the alternative, if the land of the petitioner is not acquired by the respondents and the compensation is not paid to the petitioner as prayed then issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the Towers and the transmission lines from the land of the petitioner at the cost and expenses of the respondents and restore the land of the petitioner to its original state.” 3. The prayer of the petitioner is that direction be issued to the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner and to compensate him adequately in lieu of the land that has been utilized by respondents No.1 to 3 qua setting up towers 3 for the laying of transmission lines. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the transmission lines are being laid in terms of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and there is no provision for the acquisition of land as per the said Act. Learned counsel for the said respondents further submits that at the most, the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the utilization of his land, which is not being accepted by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no compensation has yet been offered to the petitioner by respondents No.1 to 3. 5. Be that as it may, in the light of the fact that in terms of the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the land utilized for setting up of the towers is not to be acquired nor there is any change in the ownership of the land and the land owner only has the right of compensation and damages, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let adequate compensation as assessed by respondents No.1 to 3 be paid by them to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and in case the petitioner is not satisfied therewith, he 4 may resort to the legal remedy against the sufficiency of the compensation as is provided under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 24, 2025 (Vinod)