1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---In this appeal leave was granted on noticing the facts and the point involved therein as under:-- ' The respondents had installed a 500 K.V. Transmission line over the land of the appellants due to which, according to them, their buildings and fruit trees worth Rs,48,75,000 were damaged. The appellants filed a suit for compensation before the District Judge, Multan which was contested by the respondents. On the pleadings of the parties the District Judge framed 7 issues out of which issue No,6 was regarding the jurisdiction. The learned District Judge decided this issue in favour of the respondents and dismissed the suit of the appellants vide order dated 6-11-1985. The appellants went in revision before the High Court, wherein it was contended that WAPDA being a licensee under the Electricity Act, 1910 and under section 51 of the said Act, powers have been conferred on the licensee which can be exercised by the Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, 1885. It was also added that under section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act a District Judge is competent to determine the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid to the aggrieved party.
2. ' The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 regarding the sufficiency of compensation to be determined by the District Judge cannot be extended to the instant case. Section 14 of the specific statute like WAPDA Act applies. The appellants were advised to approach the Deputy Commissioner for this purpose and the revision petition of the appellants was dismissed in limine vide order dated 18-1-1986.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we have come to the conclusion that the case involves the question of interpretation of the provisions of WAPDA Act, 1958 and that of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is of substantial legal importance.
4. ' The High Court while dealing with the question: as to whether the District Magistrate or District Judge had the jurisdiction in the matter observed and held as follows:-- "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 Telegraph Act, 1885, a District Judge is competent to determine the sufficiency of compensation to be paid to the aggrieved party."
5. ' Avowedly, under section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, the sufficiency of compensation is to be 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 Telegraph Act, 1885, any of the powers 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."
6. ' It may be seen that the Government can by order in writing apply the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, on a licensee for the placing of appliances and apparatus for the transmission of energy.
7. It does not follow that the sufficiency of compensation is also to be determined by the person as embodied in section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. 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 him in writing, may enter upon and survey any land, erect pillars for the determination 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.
8. ' 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 matter as it is within the province of the Deputy Commissioner to determine the sufficiency of the compensation to be awarded to the petitioners."
9. ' Learned counsel, however, reiterated his argument that section 14 of the WAPDA Act, has not excluded the application of section 51 of the Electricity Act, therefore, the procedures prescribed by the Electricity Act as also the forum established thereunder for award of compensation would by reference be attracted to the present case also. He also argued that section 14 of the WAPDA Act, would be attracted only up to the stage of the preparation of a scheme and not to the stage When it is to be executed.
10. There are various reasons for which the argument of the learned counsel is untenable. One, the use of the word preparation in section 14 of the WAPDA Act is in a general way. It would be for the purpose of damage and compensation as involved in this case including those stages of the scheme also which may be termed as described by the learned counsel before the execution of the scheme.
11. ' Otherwise too section 51 of the Electricity Act relied upon by the learned counsel only refers 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". The stage of determination and awarding compensation does not seem to have been visualised in section 51. For that purpose the learned counsel agreed that there are other provisions available in the Electricity Act. They have not been specifically made applicable by reference as section 51, of the Electricity Act.
12. ' There is another aspect of the matter. The provisions of the WAPDA Act relating to the determination and award of compensation as well as the forum concerned are in the nature of special provisions while those relied upon by the learned counsel would only be treated as general.
13. ' There is yet another aspect while the provisions contained in section 14, of the WAPDA Act are specific regarding the compensation and the forum which would award the compensation, section 51, relied upon by the learned counsel by itself does not provide any forum or any mechanism for award of compensation. Further legislation would be required so as to achieve what the learned counsel has contended.
14. ' In the light of the above discussion we have found no justification for interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.