Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against compensation orders passed by a District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are not maintainable. The Court observed that Section 16(5) of the Act expressly provides that such determinations are “final,” thereby excluding the application of Section 96 CPC.
The Court clarified:
“Styling a proceeding as a ‘civil suit’ or drawing a decree does not override the statutory finality under Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act.”
In the interest of justice, the Court directed that the appeals filed by poor farmers be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the appropriate forum, instead of dismissing them.
Facts
The appellants, small farmers, claimed damages to their agricultural land and produce caused by the respondent corporation while exercising powers under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act for erecting transmission lines. They instituted suits before the District Judge, Aurangabad under Section 16(3) of the Act.
The District Judge awarded compensation ranging from ₹2,232 to ₹7,900 with 6% interest per annum. Dissatisfied, the farmers filed First Appeals in the High Court under Section 96 CPC, challenging the adequacy of compensation.
The Registry objected to the maintainability of these appeals, citing Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act which declares decisions of the District Judge under Section 16(3) and 16(4) as final. The issue before the High Court was whether such appeals could be entertained.
Issues
- Whether First Appeals under Section 96 CPC are maintainable against compensation awards passed by District Judges under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
- Whether the drawing of a decree or titling of proceedings as a “civil suit” confers appellate jurisdiction where statute declares decisions final.
- What is the proper remedy available to parties aggrieved by such awards.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The farmers argued that since their proceedings were registered as civil suits, disposed of by judgments accompanied by decrees, they fell squarely within the ambit of Section 96 CPC. They contended that any claimant dissatisfied with compensation should have the right of re-assessment before an appellate forum, and denial of appeal would leave them remediless.
It was submitted that decrees drawn by the District Judge answer the definition of “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC, thereby making First Appeals the only logical remedy. They emphasised the principle of fair access to appellate scrutiny in compensation cases.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent corporation contended that the original proceedings were not ordinary civil suits but statutory claims under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act. Section 16(5) explicitly provides finality to such determinations, excluding the jurisdiction of appellate courts under Section 96 CPC.
It was argued that allowing appeals would defeat the legislative intent of speedy resolution of compensation disputes under the Telegraph Act. The respondent further pointed out that aggrieved parties may still invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, as recognised by precedent.
Analysis of the Law
The Court undertook a conjoint reading of Section 96 CPC and Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. It held that while Section 96 generally provides for appeals from decrees, the saving clause “save where otherwise expressly provided” applies. Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act is such an express provision, declaring the District Judge’s determination “final.”
Thus, merely titling the proceedings as civil suits or drawing decrees does not override the statutory finality. The Court emphasised that statutory finality provisions prevail over general appeal rights.
The Court referred to Roda Jal Mehta v. Homi Framrose Mehta (AIR 1989 Bom 359), which held that when a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a plaint, it must return it under Order VII Rule 10 CPC rather than dismiss it.
Precedent Analysis
- Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Vinod (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1731): The Supreme Court held that since Section 16(5) of the Telegraph Act grants finality, no statutory appeal lies. Aggrieved parties may invoke Articles 226/227. It also directed the Law Commission and Ministry of Law to consider introducing a statutory appeal remedy. The present case relied heavily on this ruling.
- Roda Jal Mehta v. Homi Framrose Mehta (AIR 1989 Bom 359): Clarified that when a court is not empowered to entertain a plaint, it must return it under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, not dismiss it. Applied here to return appeals rather than dismiss them
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that:
- Section 16(5) overrides Section 96 CPC; hence First Appeals are not maintainable.
- The mere fact that the District Judge styled proceedings as “civil suits” and drew decrees does not enlarge appellate jurisdiction.
- Following Kalpataru, the proper remedy is by way of writ petitions under Articles 226/227.
- To prevent hardship to poor farmers who paid court fees, the appeals should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, enabling them to file proper proceedings in the right forum.
Conclusion
The High Court held that First Appeals against awards under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act are barred. It returned the appeals to the farmers under Order VII Rule 10 CPC with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Implications
This judgment underscores that compensation disputes under the Telegraph Act cannot be pursued via First Appeals. Aggrieved parties must approach High Courts under writ jurisdiction.
It also highlights the Supreme Court’s call for legislative reform to provide a clear statutory appellate remedy, preventing litigants from resorting to inconsistent routes. Until then, writ petitions remain the only recourse.
FAQs
Q1. Are First Appeals maintainable against compensation awards under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act?
No. Section 16(5) declares such decisions final, barring appeals under Section 96 CPC.
Q2. What remedy is available if compensation is inadequate?
Aggrieved parties can file writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, as recognised in Kalpataru.
Q3. Why were the appeals returned instead of dismissed?
To avoid hardship to farmers, the High Court returned them under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, enabling presentation before the proper forum.
