1( 2026:HHC:18405 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.183 of 2021 Reserved on 21.04.2026 Date of Decision :19.05.2026 M/s AD Hydro Power Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Paras Dhaulta and Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocates. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. dated 01.10.2018, whereby the petition filed by the present petitioner has been dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Collector, Kullu, District Kullu, dated 11.11.2013 has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company running its business of generating Hydro Electric Power in the name of AD Hydro Power Limited having its 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2026:HHC:18405 ) registered office at Village & Post Office Prini, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P.and the same is being transmitted to the Central Grid of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited at Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and for this purpose 220 K.V/DC transmission line has been laid through various places of Districts Kullu,Mandi, Bilaspur and Solan by the petitioner’s company and the project is in operation since, July 2010. 3. The present respondents laid claim that the present petitioner has erected 132 KV high tension line above their land whereby making it useless. It was averred that the respondents/ claimants wanted to utilize the land bearing Khasra Nos.499,483,493(Khata Khatauni No. 123/127 and 154/256 situated in Phati Soil, Kothi Barshai, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. to raise construction for the commercial complex. It was averred that the Allian Duhangan Hydro Power Project has installed a Hydro project and the same has been completed and the work of laying the tower and high tension line was started by the petitioner and the land for raising the towers and laying the high tension wires of 232 KV has been taken from the different land owners including respondents. It was further averred that the present petitioner had not taken any permission in writing from the respondents and started laying the high tension wires as well as erecting towers to lay the line. The applicants/respondents had purchased the land 3( 2026:HHC:18405 ) for construction of commercial project on the suit land which was to be constructed at the estimate cost of Rs.50,27,000/-. It was further averred that due to laying of forcible high- tension wires intersecting the land of the claimants/respondents, they had to apply for the cancellation of loan which they had applied for raising the construction over the suit land. That on account of installation of the Allain Duhangan Hydro Electric Project and on account of laying of the hightension wires over and above the land of the respondents/claimants, objections for the grant of compensation were filed before the Collector, Kullu, District Kullu and the copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure-P4. 4. As per the averments as made in the objections, it was averred that high tension wires of 132 KV have been laid by the petitioner without taking prior permission from the local residents including the present respondents. No prior permission was taken from the land owners and high tension wires over and above their land were installed as the height of the tower as provided in the Electricity Act should not be less than 9 meters which is 30 feet approximately. Therefore, the land which was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of making a commercial complex has become redundant. It was stated that this Court in CWP No. 513 of 2007 titled as A.D. 4( 2026:HHC:18405 ) Hydro Power Ltd. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.03.2010, has categorically directed the Deputy Commissioners of all the Districts to give the adequate compensation to the parties, particularly the landowners, over whose land high-tension transmission lines are being laid. 5. It was averred in the objection that in Civil Suit titled as Namta vs. AD Hydro Project which was decided on 11.04.2007 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Manali, Sh. Dharmender Kumar son of Sh. Bharat Singh, power of attorney holder of the present petitioner has stated that they shall not lay the electrical lines over and above the land of said Namta Devi. The land of the present respondent is adjoining to the land of said Namta Devi, hence undertaking has been given before the learned Civil Court which remained unchallenged and unrebutted, therefore, the present petitioner cannot lay the wires over and above the land of Namta Devi as well as the land of the present respondents. It was further averred that the claimants/respondents had not been paid any compensation for laying the wires, therefore, it was prayed that the claimants may be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,00,000/- qua the land as well as compensation for incurring loss of future income and also interest, solatium as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. 5( 2026:HHC:18405 ) 6. The learned Collector based upon assessment as made by the committee constituted by the learned Collector, Kullu comprising of SDM, Manali , District Kullu and Executive Engineer HPPWD, Kullu, the report of which has been placed on record Annexure P7, made recommendation for the payment of Rs.5,42,010/- in favour of the present respondents. The learned Collector based upon recommendation of the Committee ordered the payment of the said amount to the respondents within a period of one month from the date of the passing of the order, failing which they shall be entitled to penal interest@ 18% per annum for the period from the date of the order till the compensation is paid. The Collector, Kullu passed the said order on 11.11.2013. 7. Thereafter an application under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act challenging the order as passed by the learned Collector dated 11.11.2013 was filed by the petitioner. The said application/petition was preferred on 15.01.2014. Similarly, application under Section 16 (1 ,2 and 3 ) of the Indian Telegraph Act was also preferred by the present respondents and the copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. The learned Additional District Judge vide its judgment dated 1.10.2018, dismissed the application/petition by the present petitioner affirming the order as passed by the learned Collector, Kullu whereby the 6( 2026:HHC:18405 ) compensation to the tune of Rs.5,42010/-was ordered to be paid to the claimants/respondents. Admittedly, the said award was passed by the learned Additional District Judge under the provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act on 01.10.2018. 8. Feeling dissatisfied against the award as passed by the learned Additional District Judge the preset petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present petitioner has filed the present petition after lapse of more than three years i.e on 30.07.2021, whereas the impugned award was passed on 01.10.2018. The Court on 03.09.2021, passed the following order: “03.09.2021 Present: Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner CMP No.10228 of 2021 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in re-filing the petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CMPMO No.183 of 2021 Heard. Petitioner to justify the maintainability of this petition, whereby the petitioner is seeking to challenge an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, District Kullu, in case No.1/DC/ Comp/2010 as far as back on 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-1) and other judgment that has been assailed, has been passed by the learned 7( 2026:HHC:18405 ) District Judge, Kullu, in C.M.P.(I.T.) No.94 of 2014 way back on 01.10.2018 (Annexure P-2). Whereas, the instant petition has been filed only on 30th July, 2021. List on 10.09.2021. CMP No.10227 of 2021 The application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file English translation/true typed/legible copies of the annexures in issue by the next date of hearing.” 9. On. 17.09.2021, time was granted to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit in response to the order which was passed by this Court on 03.09.2021. On 29.10.2021, this Court had directed the petitioner to place on record the affidavit of the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned District Judge. Thereafter on 26.11.2021, dasti notices were issued to the respondents. 10. In response to the notices, the present respondents filed reply to the present petition which has been filed under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. The present petitioner has approached this Court primarily on two grounds: (i) That the order as passed by the learned Collector dated 11.11.2013 is without jurisdiction as according to the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is only the District Judge, who is competent to determine the compensation. 8( 2026:HHC:18405 ) (ii) That the amount of compensation as assessed by the Committee consisting of SDM Manali and Executive Engineer,HPPWD, Kullu is erroneous and based upon the report of the said Committee, the Collector, Kullu has wrongly assessed the compensation, which is on the higher side. 12. The provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act reads as under: “16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority. (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.” 13. It is contended by Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Collector has passed the order without having jurisdiction and against the statute, therefore, the said order is nullity and consequently, the order is required to be quashed and set- aside. She further submits that this Court, while dealing with the similar exposition of law in CMPMO No. 302 of 2018 titled as M/s A.D. Hydro Power Ltd. Vs. Sh. Juglu Ram decided on 03.12.2018, has held that powers under the provisions of Section 16 (3) of the Act for determining the compensation could only be exercised by the District Judge, not by the Deputy Commissioner and as such, impugned order 9( 2026:HHC:18405 ) dated 11.11.2013 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Kullu, is null and void as having been passed without jurisdiction. She submits that on these two counts, the present petition deserves to be allowed and both the orders as passed by the learned Collector and the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu are required to be set-aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Paras Dhaulta and Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocates has defended the order as passed by the Courts below. Learned Senior counsel submits that the present petition is highly belated and the same has been filed after the lapse of more than three years and no reasonable explanation has been given in the present petition. He further submits that though the directions were issued by this Court for filing of an affidavit by the counsel for the petitioner, however, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the official of the same that too is lacking the submissions with respect to the non-filing of the present petition for about three years. He further submits that before the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, the present petitioner was duly represented by Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate, however, the supplementary affidavit has been filed by one Sh. Ramesh Kumar Khaitan, who has stated in his affidavit that company came to know about the impugned order only in the month of 10( 2026:HHC:18405 ) July 2021. He further submits that the perusal of the affidavit does not spell the explanation for not filing the present petition for about three years. 15. Learned Senior counsel submits that the point as raised by the petitioner with respect to jurisdiction is not sustainable in view of the order which was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 513 of 2007, which was filed by the present petitioner seeking direction from the Court to specify any agency /officer with which the petitioner company is to deposit the compensation for damage to the land over which the transmission towers of the Project are proposed to be erected. He submits that this Court in its judgment dated 17.03.2010 has observed that in case there is any dispute with regard to the compensation, the matter is to be settled by the Deputy Commissioners under Section 10 read with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. There will be a direction to the Deputy Commissioners, Kullu, Mandi, Bilaspur and Solan to dispose of any application pending in that regard within a period of one month from the date of production of the copy of the judgment. 16. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate since the said order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench 11( 2026:HHC:18405 ) on the asking of the petitioner and after the passing of the judgment by this Court, the parties had approached the learned Collector and the same shall be clear from the order, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, whereby it has been spelled that application has been filed by the claimants against the respondents therein to assess the damages and affix the compensation in view of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 513 of 2007. 17. As per learned Senior counsel, the issue of jurisdiction was neither raised up by the present petitioner either before the learned Collector or before the learned Additional District Judge and for the first time, such plea has been raised, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the present respondents are pursuing their cause for the last more than 20 years and the present petitioner has dragged the claimants/respondents in an uncalled-for litigation despite of the fact that the land of the respondents have been utilized for laying of the high-tension wires. He prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be rejected with costs. 12( 2026:HHC:18405 ) 19. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on the case file. 20. It is an admitted fact that the present petitioner- company is running Hydro Electricity Power Project and has installed high tension wires and in that process, the land of the different land owners were utilized. The land of the present respondents has also been utilized by the present petitioner for laying of the high tension wires. 21. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is the District Judge, who shall determine the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 read with Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. The perusal of the Act is specific and clear and the said provision was interpreted in judgments which has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 302 of 2018 dated 03.12.2018. 22. The Apex Court in the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. centuary textiles & Industgries Limited & Ors, (2017) (5) SCC 143, held as under: “27) At this stage, we deal with the direction of the Division Bench regarding compensation payable to the writ petitioner, or for that matter to 13( 2026:HHC:18405 ) the State Government. In the first instance no such claim was laid by the writ petitioner in the writ petition or by the State Government before the High Court. Furthermore, the High Court could not have given this task to the District Collector, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which are extended to laying down of electricity lines. As per this provision, such an authority vests with the District Judge. 28) These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the concerned District Judge for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated October 15, 2015 in this behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines.” 23. The Hon’ble Apex court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.(s).4634-4635/2021, titled as D. Balakrishnan vs. K.S Wind and Renewables India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, decided on 22.03.2024, held as under: “6. The petitioners are not satisfied with the manner in which the amount to be paid towards compensation has been determined by the District Revenue officer. 7. In such circumstances, the only option now available for the petitioners is to file an appeal before the concerned District Judge in accordance with the 14( 2026:HHC:18405 ) provisions of Section 16, sub-section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.” 24. This Court in CMMO No. 302 of 2019, titled as M/s A.D Hydro Power Ltd. Vs. Sh. Juglu Ram decided on 03.12.2018 has held as under: “10.As far as judgment renderedbytheDivision Bench of this Court in CWP No. 513 of 2007 is concerned, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel that in view of the mandate given in that judgment, Deputy Commissioner was duty bound to determine the compensation under Section 16 (3) of the Act, because bare perusal of judgment clearly suggests that petitioner therein had approached the Court in altogether different circumstances and by way of that petition, petitioner had prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent to ensure that petitioner company is able to carry out transmission work of the time bound 192 MW Hydro Electric Power Project peacefully in spite of the objections of the owners/occupiers/any person claiming any interest on the land over which the towers are to be constructed. Petitioner therein also prayed that respondent be directed to make available to the petitioner, lands where the towers as per its approved scheme /surveys are to be erected and the transmission lines are to be laid out. In the aforesaid petition, petitioner also prayed that respondent may also be directed to specify any agency/officer with which the petitioner company is required to deposit the compensation for the damage qua the land over which transmission towers of the Project is proposed to be erected. Division Bench of this Court having taken note of the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, held that Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972,is not applicable in the present case and directed the State Government and authorities concerned to render helping hand to the petitioner so that developmental project is able to commence the commercial production at least by 1.6.2010. But since land owners were not allowing the company to erect towers despite readiness 15( 2026:HHC:18405 ) of the company to pay compensation, Division Bench directed the Deputy Commissioner to ensure that compensation is paid to the land owners and no unnecessary delay is caused for the enhancement of the project. Leaving everything aside, this court is in full agreement with Ms. Dua that there cannot be any direction against the statute. When Section 16 (3) specifically provides that in the event of dispute inter-se parties with regard to the compensation, it is only District Judge, who is competent to decide the dispute inter-se parties, within whose jurisdiction the property is situate. In the case at hand, as has been discussed herein above, Deputy Commissioner has wrongly determined the compensation taking cognigence of the application having been filed by the respondent under Section 16 (3), which is/was otherwise not maintainable before it and as such, order, if any, passed by it on that application cannot be allowed to sustain being passed without any jurisdiction. 11.Interestingly,inthecase at hand, learned District Judge while deciding the application filed by the applicant under Section16 (3), which otherwise is the only prescribed mode under the Act to dispute the compensation, failed to decide the specific objections raised by the applicant, rather he without deciding the question of maintainability/competence of Deputy Commissioner, to decide proceedings under Section16 (3),proceeded to decide the application filed under Section 16 (3) by the respondent that too in the proceedings filed by the applicant under Section 16 (3), which was definitely filed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Careful perusal of impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, clearly suggests that it while deciding the application having been filed by the respondent under Section 16(3) placed sole reliance upon report which was called for by the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to application filed by the respondent, seeking therein compensation under Section 16 (3) from the SDM. It is not in dispute that respondent while prosecuting his case under Section 16 (3) before the District Judge, did not adduce on record any evidence, in support of his claim, rather reliance, if any, is/was placed upon report of the SDM, which was admittedly called for by the District Judge in the proceedings initiated by it under Section16 (3) of the 16( 2026:HHC:18405 ) Act, which was beyond its jurisdiction. Since proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 16 (3) were also beyond his jurisdiction, report, if any, called in those proceedings could not be relied upon by the District Judge while determining the compensation, if any, in the application having been filed by the respondent under Section 16(3) of the Act, that too, in the petition having been filed by the petitioner herein, laying therein challenge to order passed by the District Judge, whereby he without jurisdiction awarded sum of Rs. 4 lac as compensation.” 25. The perusal of the judgments and the provisions of the Act makes it clear that there is no doubt that the sufficiency of compensation has to be determined by the learned District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. In para 10 of judgment in CMPMO No.302 of 2018 there is also reference of the observations as made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in CWP No. 513 of 2007 and it was held by the Court that power under Section 16(3) of the Act for determining the compensation are to be exercised by the learned District Judge. In the present case also though the order has been passed by the learned Collector, the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the Collector is without jurisdiction is sustainable and liable to be accepted. The Collector has no jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation. 26. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of the jurisdiction can be 17( 2026:HHC:18405 ) raised at any stage is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gaon Sabha and another vs. Nathi and others (2004) 12 SCC 555 held as under: “15. The legal position is therefore absolutely clear and there cannot be even a slightest doubt that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which was filed seeking a declaration that the order of vesting of land in Gaon Sabha is illegal. It is indeed surprising that in spite of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court which was rendered in 1973 which had settled the legal position and was a binding precedent and the decision of this Court in Hatti v. Sundar Singh (supra) which was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the second appeal (RSA No. 73 of 1972), he chose to bye-pass the same by some queer logic and went on to hold that the civil suit was maintainable. Once we come to the legal position that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the inevitable consequence is that the decree passed in the aforesaid suit including that of the High Court is wholly without jurisdiction. In such circumstances the principle laid down in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan would come into play that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings and further a defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. 18( 2026:HHC:18405 ) Therefore, the finding that the order passed under Section 7(2) of the Act vesting the property in the Gaon Sabha is illegal recorded in the civil suit (including that by the High Court in second appeal) has to be completely ignored.” 27. Similarly Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Dass vs. Ram Prakash (1977) 2 SCC 662 held as under: “3. Now, the law is well settled that an executing court cannot go behind the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness. But there is one exception to this general rule and that is that where the decree sought to be executed is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction in the court passing it, its invalidity can be set up in an execution proceeding. Where there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, it goes to the root of the competence of the court to try the case and a decree which is a nullity is void and can be declared to be void by any Court in which it is presented. Its nullity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon and even at the stage of execution or even in collateral proceedings. The executing Court can, therefore, entertain an objection that the decree is a nullity and can refuse to execute the decree. By doing so, the executing Court would not incur the reproach that it is going behind the decree, because the decree being null and void, there would really be no decree at all. Vide Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [1 and Hiralal Patni v. Kah Nath . It is, therefore, obvious that in the present case, it was competent to the executing court to examine whether the decree for eviction was a nullity on the ground that the civil Court had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the decree for eviction was passed. If the decree for eviction was a nullity, the 19( 2026:HHC:18405 ) executing Court could declare it to be such and decline to execute it against the respondent.” 28. Therefore, the plea of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. The collector does not have the jurisdiction to determine the compensation and it is only the District Judge who is vested with the said person. 29. Then the question arises that the persons whose land has been utilized by the petitioner company for laying the high tension wires what remedy is available to them. In the present case, the petitioner as well as the respondents filed the petition/application under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act before learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu. The learned Additional District Judge, Kullu vide its award dated 01.10.2018,dismissed the application/petition filed by the A.D Hydro Power Ltd. Similarly, the application filed by the present respondents was also ordered to be dismissed. 30. The learned Additional District Judge, Kullu affirmed the order as passed by the learned Collector, Kullu, District Kullu. This Court is in agreement with the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that from the perusal of the award which has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P., under the 20( 2026:HHC:18405 ) provisions of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is evident that, after considering the pleadings of the parties, independent issues were framed and the respective parties were directed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and thereafter, after due application of mind, the award has been passed. 31. The learned Additional District Judge Kullu has adjudicated the petition under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the parties should be relegated again to the very same Court. Once the learned Additional District Judge was approached, by both the parties by filing petition under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, which was duly adjudicated by passing independent findings therefore in considered view of this Court, the provision of Section 16 has been availed by the respective parties. The learned Additional District Judge after due application of mind had determined the point in controversy and after relying upon the report of the expert Committee, which was formed with the consent of parties consisting of SDM Manali and Executive Engineer, HPPWD Kullu, H.P., the award amounting to Rs,5,42,010/- has been held to be reasonable and the petition was ordered to be dismissed. Therefore, the parties have availed their rights as contained under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act by 21( 2026:HHC:18405 ) approaching the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu and no infirmity can be found in the same. Instead of remanding the matter again to the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu who has passed the award in 2018 after lapse of more than eight years, this Court has scanned the record and perused the report of expert Committee. 32. As far as the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amount as assessed by the Court below is on the higher side is concerned, the same is neither plausible nor sustainable. It has come on record that with the consent of the parties, on 02.03.2013, a Committee was constituted whereby both the parties have agreed for the formation of the committee to assess the damages consisting of SDM, Manali and Executive Engineer,HPPWD Kullu, H.P. The said experts are the independent persons and they have no personal interest in the present case. They visited the spot and have given their report, whereby they found that compensation to the tune of Rs.5,42,010/- is recommended to be paid to the claimants. On the recommendation of the expert Committee, the amount was ordered to be paid to the claimants/respondents. After perusing the report of the expert committee, this court is of the considered view that the expert Committee has rightly assessed the amount and no infirmity/illegality can be pointed out by the learned counsel 22( 2026:HHC:18405 ) for the petitioner in the same. The present respondents are pursuing their cause for the last more than 20 years and the petitioner has dragged them in an uncalled for litigation. The conduct of the petitioner can be gathered from the fact that though award was passed in the year 2018, however, the petition has been filed in the year 2021 just to prolong the agony of the claim of the respondents. The Committee has rightly determined the amount of compensation. 33. The petitioner has also failed to demonstrate from the record and supplementary affidavit that what prevented them from filing the petition after the passing of the award on 01.10.2018, whereas the present petition has been filed on 28.08.2021. There is no cogent or plausible explanation or sufficient cause assigned in the petition. On the face of it, the present petition is time barred. 34. The present petition is partly allowed to the extent that under the provision of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, it is only the District Judge who can determine the compensation and not the Collector. Further it is held that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in view of the mandate as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, this Court holds that since the respective parties have availed their remedy by filing 23( 2026:HHC:18405 ) petition/application under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act before the learned Additional District Judge, and the same was disposed off on merits, therefore, instead of remitting the case back to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, again, this Court holds that the order as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, relying upon the report of the expert Committee, whereby a sum of Rs.5,42,010/- has been recommended, is held to be valid and sustainable. 35. 35. The respondents are entitled for an amount of Rs 5,42,010/- alongwith interest from the petitioner. 36. Consequently, in view of the above observation, the present petition is disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 19.05.2026 (veena)