P L D 1986 Lahore 126 (PLP)

500 K. V. transmission line has been installed over the land of the' petitioners by the respondents. The petitioners sustained damage‑amount ing to Rs. 48,75,800 as their fruit trees and the buildings had been affected by the said transmission line. They filed a petition before the learned District Judge, Multan for having the said compensation. The respondents contended that the learned District Judge could not take cogniz ance of the matter and raised a number of other pleas which are apparent from the following issues‑,‑ (1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 18,75,800 as compensation for fruit trees etc. cut and buildings affected belonging to them from the respondent, (WAPDA)? O. P. P. (2) If not what is the correct amount of compensation? O. P. P. (3) Are the petitioners entitled to Rs. 500 as lease compensation for affixation of a tower of 5 K. V. covering an area of their land measuring 5 Marlas? O. P. P. (4) Is the petition time‑barred? O. P. R. (5) Are the petitioners estopped to file the petition in view of prelimi nary objections Nos. 1 to 3 of the reply? O. P. R. (6) Has this Court no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of this petition? O. P. R. (7) Relief. The learned District Judge decided Issue No. 6 only regarding jurisdic tion and adjudicated that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear this matter and dismissed the petition.

2. The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and have contended that the District Judge could decide and determine the sufficiency of compensation to be paid to the petitioners. It has been represented that WAPDA happens to be a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910 and under section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, powers have been conferred on the licensee which can be exercised by the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885. It has been added that under section 16 para. 3 of the Telegraphs Act, 1885, a District Judge is competent to determine the sufficiency of compensation to be paid to the aggrieved party.

3. Avowedly, under section 16 of the Telegraphs Act, 1885, the sufficiency of compensation is to he determined by the learned District Judge. Section 51 of the Electricity Act; 1910, reads as under:‑ "Notwithstanding anything in sections 12 to 16 (both inclusive) and sections 18 and 19, the Provincial Government may, by order in writing for the placing of appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy, confer upon any public officer or licensee, subject to such conditions and restrictions (if any) as the Provincial Government may think fit to impose, and to the provisions of the Telegraphs Act, 1885, any of the power which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act, with respect to placing of telegraph‑lines and posts for the purposes of a. telegraph established or maintained by the Government or to be so established or maintained." It may be keen that the Government can by order in writing apply the provisions of the Telegraphs Act, 1885, on a licensee for the placing' of appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy. It due not follow that the sufficiency of compensation is also to be determined by the person as embodied in section 16 of the Telegraphs Act, 1835. WAPDA Act, ‑ 1958, has been specifically enforced and section 14 of the WAPDA Act, 1958, runs as under:‑ "(1) The Chairman or any person authorised by hire in writing, may enter upon and survey any land, erect pillar, for the determina tion of intended lines of works, make borings and excavations and do all other acts which may be necessary for the preparation of any scheme: Provided that when the affected land does not vest in the Authority, the power conferred by this subsection shall be exercised in such manner as to cause the least interference with, and the least damage to, the rights of the owner thereof. (2) When any person enters into or upon any land in pursuance of subsection (1), he shall, at the time of entering or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, pay or tender payment for all necessary damage to be done as aforesaid, and in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered, the dispute shall be referred to the Deputy Commissioner of the district whose decision shall be final." In para. 2 of section 14 of the WAPDA Act, 1958, a specific provision has been made for the determination of the sufficiency of the amount by the Deputy Commissioner of the district and finality has been attached to his decision. In this manner, the learned District Judge has rightly concluded that he lacks the jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matte as it is within the province of the Deputy Commissioner to determine the sufficiency of the compensation to be awarded to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Mian Abdul Aziz v. Punjab Government (201 I C 739), which deals with the competency of a revision petition and the application of Article 181 of the Law of Limita tions to such petitions. It also deals with the powers of a District Judge and an Additional District Judge. When this judgment was announced, the WAPDA Act bad not been enforced. By no stretch of imagina tion, the provisions of the Telegraphs Act, 1885, regarding the sufficiency G of compensation to be determined by the District Judge. can be extended to the instant case when a specific statute like WAPDA Act is there. The petitioners are well‑advised to approach the Deputy Commissioner of the district for this purpose. The learned District Judge has declined to exercise the jurisdiction not vested in him and has not committed any illegality or material irregularity as envisaged under section 115, C. P. C I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition in limine. A. A. Revision dismissed in limine.