2026:HHC:25737-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1844 of 2023 Decided on: 1st July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s J.P. Power Grid Limited & Anr. …..Petitioners Versus Jagat Ram .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No.51 min/39 min, Khatauni No.54/54, Khasra Nos.386 & 387, Kitas 2, measuring 00-60-58 hectares, situated at Up-Mohal Bharon, Rawla- Kiar, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. Respondent had an apple fruit orchard upon the aforesaid land. Petitioner- Company constructed a transmission tower over the aforesaid land of the respondent, thereby utilizing about 4-0 bighas of land. Petitioners paid a compensation of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:25737-DB Rs.7,71,143/- to the respondent in lieu of damage caused to his land and trees. With the grievance that compensation paid to him was inadequate, respondent took recourse to Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for grant of compensation. Respondent alleged therein that in the process of construction of tower, 89 apple fruit trees were completely damaged and partial damage was caused to 50 trees during stringing operation. Petitioners refuted respondent’s claim. Parties led evidence in support of their respective stands. On considering the entire case, learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla held that the respondent had established on record complete damage caused to 89 apple fruit bearing trees of good quality as also partial damage to 50 trees due to stringing operation. In view of this, total compensation was assessed at Rs.17,70,650/-. In lieu of partial damage restrictively claimed by the respondent to 50 trees, the payable compensation was reduced to the extent of Rs.1,08,550/-, or in other words, the payable compensation was assessed at Rs.16,62,100/-. Since an amount of Rs.7,71,143/- had already been paid by the petitioners to the respondent, therefore, the compensation that remained to be paid to the 3 2026:HHC:25737-DB respondent in terms of the impugned award was calculated at Rs.8,90,957/-. Learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla also awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid compensation from the date of filing of the petition. This award has been assailed in the instant petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 2(i). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the process of construction of transmission tower and also the stringing operations, complete damage had been caused only to about 22 fruit bearing trees belonging to the respondent, whereas, partial damage had been caused to 50 trees. It was also submitted that learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla had unjustly relied upon the evaluation report, Ex. PW-1/A, as also the spot report, Ex. PW-5/A, in passing the impugned award, determining complete damage having been caused to 89 trees and partial damage to 50 trees. 2(ii). Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent besides inviting attention to the statements made by the witnesses and the documents exhibited by them, also invited attention to the receipts appended 4 2026:HHC:25737-DB alongwith the reply filed by the respondent to the present writ petition. These receipts have been issued by the petitioner-Company and are stated to be part of the record of learned Lower Court. These receipts have not been disputed for the petitioners. In terms of these receipts, the petitioner-Company has acknowledged not only partial damage to the fruit bearing trees, but also complete damage to 89 trees of the respondent. 3. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and arrive at finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded the jurisdiction or acted perversely. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru & Ors2:- “16. It is a well-established principle that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely. 17. On the said settled proposition of law, we must make reference to the judgment of this Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram3. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “16. … It is well settled that the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an 2 (2025) 3 SCC 266 3 (1986) 4 SCC 447 5 2026:HHC:25737-DB appropriate court if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the courts below have come or in other words a finding which was perverse in law. This principle is well settled. In D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee [(1952) 2 SCC 619] it was laid down by this court that unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it was not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere. If there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the court has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the power under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities. …” 18. The above said proposition of law was reiterated in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj4, wherein it was observed that: “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” Respondent’s case had been that he had suffered complete loss of 89 trees as also partial damage to 50 apple fruit trees on account of construction of 4 (2008) 9 SCC 1 6 2026:HHC:25737-DB transmission tower and stringing operations carried out by the petitioner-Company over the land in question. Respondent’s stand has been vindicated by the concerned Patwari, PW-5. He had proved his report, Ex. PW-5/A. The assessment of the damage has been proved on record by the expert, i.e. a retired Deputy Director Horticulture, who appeared as PW-1 and proved his evaluation report Ex. PW-1/A. Further, the receipts placed by the respondent alongwith his reply, which are admittedly part of the record of learned Lower Court, completely belie the stand taken by the petitioner-Company in denying complete loss to any fruit bearing tree. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a faint submission that the subject expert produced by the respondent, i.e. PW-1, had not prepared the report after inspecting the spot. However, no cogent evidence has been led by the petitioners to disprove the expert report (Ex. PW- 1/A) or that the age of the trees was wrongly mentioned therein or that the extent of the damage was wrongly stated therein. The statements & reports are in conformity with each other. There is no contradiction as alleged. Further the petitioners did not lead any evidence of an expert etc. to disprove the case set up by the respondent. 7 2026:HHC:25737-DB 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla holding that the respondent was entitled to the balance amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,90,957/- [Rs.17,70,650/- (as assessed by PW-1) – Rs.1,08,550/- (partial damage restrictively claimed by the respondent to 50 trees) – Rs.7,71,143/- (already received by the respondent), alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 01, 2026 Judge Mukesh