Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Union Of India vs State & Ors on 24 May, 2018
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2655 / 2018
Union Of India
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sanjeet Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.C.P.Soni, Mr.Suniel Purohit.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order 18/05/2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
The petitioner Union of India through the Commander Headquarter 45, Border Road Task Force (BRTF), C/o 56 APO is aggrieved of the order (Annex.13) dated 9.2.2018 passed by the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA), Jodhpur whereby, a 27 meters strip of land was allotted to the RRVPNL through the chunk of land allocated to the petitioner in village Badli for establishment of a residential colony and so also, the order (Annex.14) dated 14.2.2018 passed by the Superintending Engineer, RRVPNL whereby, he refused to afford sanction for shifting of the electricity line taken out through the said strip of land on the ground that the BRTC i.e. the petitioner herein did not communicate its consent to the RRVPNL for shifting of the tower.
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, this Court (2 of 3) [CW-2655/2018] persuaded the respective officials to resolve the dispute through an amicable settlement. The Commissioner, JDA, Jodhpur was directed to act as a mediator. In furtherance of the said direction, a meeting was held in the office of the Commissioner, JDA, Jodhpur on 12.3.2018 wherein a proposal by mutual consent has been drawn up to shift the existing HT Tower to the edge of the land in question subject to the condition that the expenses are borne by the BRTF. On 16.5.2018, at the request of Shri Sanjeet Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed Shri C.P.Soni counsel appearing for the RRVPNL, to keep the Officer concerned of the RRVPNL present in the Court to explore the possibility that 50% of the expenses required for shifting of the tower may be equally borne by each of the parties. Shri N.K.Mathur, Superintending Engineer, RRVPNL present in the Court makes a statement that it would not be possible for the respondent company to bear even partial expenses for shifting of the line because of its extreme dire financial condition. He also expresses that even the shifting of the line itself would cause great difficulty because the line is meant to supply electricity to the pumping station commissioned at the Lift Canal and the drinking water supply to the city will be adversely effected.
In this background, this Court is of the firm opinion that no direction can be given to the respondent RRVPNL to bear the expenses for shifting of the tower. The wholehearted endeavour of the Commissioner, JDA, in acting as a mediator at the Court's request, has resulted into an amicable resolution of the dispute almost to the final step. Thus, the petitioner should act in a (3 of 3) [CW-2655/2018] pragmatic manner for getting its valuable land freed from the encumbrance of the electricity line by paying the shifting charges which are not very excessive (Rs.22 lacs approximately as pointed out by Shri Soni). Thereupon, the RRVPNL shall shift the electricity tower in question in accordance with the site plan prepared in the meeting dated 12.3.2018.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition as well as stay application are disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J. /tarun goyal/ 202