Gujarat High Court
Karen Ratanjibhai Becharbhai & 32 vs Gujarat Energy Transmission ... on 28 December, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 AIR CC 1308 (GUJ), (2018) 183 ALLINDCAS 295 (GUJ) (2018) 2 GUJ LR 1603, (2018) 2 GUJ LR 1603
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16946 of 2016
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2570 of 2016
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4476 of 2016
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19931 of 2016
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13218 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6562 of 2017
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12210 of 2015
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4960 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?
========================================================== KAREN RATANJIBHAI BECHARBHAI & 32....Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (GETCO) & Page 1 of 19 HC-NIC Page 1 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
2....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16946 of 2016 MR SHAKTI S JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 33 MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 33 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2570 of 2016 MR BHAVIN H ANADKAT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3 MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 2 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4476 of 2016 MR BALRAM D JAIN, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3 , 5 MR DEVANG VYAS, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 10 - 11 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19931 of 2016 MR BALRAM D JAIN, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 , 7 - 8 , 11 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 4, 6 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13218 of 2017 MR DEVDIP BRAHMBHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for Respondent(s) No. 2 - 4 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6562 of 2017 MR. BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 , 5 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12210 of 2015 MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 Page 2 of 19 HC-NIC Page 2 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 , 4 Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4960 of 2016 MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3 MS BELA A PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 3 MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SP HASURKAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Date : 28/12/2017 COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
1. In all the petitions, the common questions of law as regards the powers of the respondent - Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the GETCO'), under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 being involved, all were heard together with the consent of learned advocates for the parties and are being decided by this common order.
2. So far as the Special Civil Application No. 16946 of 2016 filed by the petitioner Karen Ratanjibhai Becharbhai and others is concerned, the petitioners claiming to be the owners of the land in question have alleged that the respondent
- GETCO wanted to lay dual electric lines of 66KV Palanpur-1, Lilo Laalawada, and for that purpose some towers and electricity poles / overhead lines were required to be erected on the land of Page 3 of 19 HC-NIC Page 3 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the petitioners. The respondent - GETCO had issued notices on 22.01.2016, to which the petitioners had submitted their detailed objections on 01.02.2016. Since their objections were not being considered, the petitioners had filed Special Civil Application No. 3075 of 2016 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 05.04.2016, as the respondent - GETCO had already made application before the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Telegraph Act'). According to the petitioners, thereafter the District Magistrate without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, allowed the application of the respondent - GETCO, and permitted GETCO to install electric lines poles / towers on the agriculture land of the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 09.08.2016 (Annexure 'G'), and therefore, the petition was filed.
3. In Special Civil Application No. 2570 of 2016 filed by the petitioner - Bhavesh Keshavji Talpara and others, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 27.01.2016, passed by the respondent No. 3 - District Magistrate granting permission to the respondent
- GETCO to pass electric lines from the farm of the petitioners and others, and restraining the petitioners and others from obstructing the work Page 4 of 19 HC-NIC Page 4 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT of GETCO in erecting poles for transmission of electricity. According to the petitioners, there is a Government waste land near the petitioners' farm and as per the policy and guidelines of the Government, the respondent - GETCO should always give first reference to the Government waste land for erecting lines and poles, however, the District Magistrate without considering the said contentions of the petitioners, had passed the impugned order on the ground that adjacent land was the forest land.
4. So far as Special Civil Application No. 4476 of 2016 filed by the petitioner - Sutariya Manishbhai Bhayabhai is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 05.01.2007, issued by the Energy and Petroleum Department, Government of Gujarat conferring the powers upon the respondent - GETCO, to place electric lines or electrical plant for transmission of electricity in exercise of powers under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and have further prayed to restrain the respondent No. 1 - GETCO from installing or erecting high tension lines in the land of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 had not obtained any sanction from the local authorities before erecting the high tension lines, which is a mandatory, nor had preferred any application before the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. According to the Page 5 of 19 HC-NIC Page 5 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT petitioner, he was not given any opportunity of hearing as contemplated under the provisions contained in the Electricity Act. The said petition has been resisted by the respondent - GETCO by filing reply contending inter alia that the GETCO is a State transmission utility under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, and it is required to perform its statutory duties under the Electricity Act. The Government of Gujarat in Energy Petroleum Department had issued the notification on 29.03.2004 declaring GETCO as transmission utility and has issued notification on 05.01.2007 conferring powers of telegraph authority under Section 164 of the Electricity Act to the GETCO. It is further contended that for the purpose of laying the entire line in question, the route and the map were approved by the competent authority and the same were also produced before the District Magistrate. The respondent - GETCO had issued notice dated 04.02.2015 to the petitioner and had filed the application before the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, who had passed the order on 29.09.2016 in favour of the respondent - Corporation. It has been stated that on account of erection of poles, the utility of the agriculture land of the petitioner did not get affected nor the agriculture operations were being affected.
5. Special Civil Application No. 19931 of 2016 was Page 6 of 19 HC-NIC Page 6 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT filed by the petitioner Alpeshbhai Himmatbhai Lakhani initially challenging the notification dated 05.01.2007 passed by the Energy and Petroleum Department, however, pending the petition, the District Magistrate having passed the order on 29.09.2016, prayer with regard to challenge to notification was incorporated. The impugned order dated 29.09.2016 has been challenged on the ground that the respondent - GETCO had not supplied any documents to the petitioner, and the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate in violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, he was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 34 situated at Eru, Taluka Jalalpore, District Navsari, and he came to know that the respondent - GETCO was carrying out 66KV high tension lines passing through several villages. It was mandatory to issue sanctioned route map prepared by the experts for laying such lines, however, the same was not prepared. The respondent - GETCO was also required to publish the scheme of project in local daily including the date of publication, order passed by the appropriate Government, names of villages, names of survey numbers, through which it was going to carry out such high tension lines, however, no such publication was made. Though the notification dated 05.01.2007 was issued by the Government of Gujarat, Energy and Petroleum Department under the provisions of Electricity Page 7 of 19 HC-NIC Page 7 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Act, no such details were mentioned. In the application made by the respondent Company before the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act, the petitioner on the service of notice had appeared in the said proceedings and had requested to supply copies of the documents, however, the same were not furnished. The District Magistrate, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2016, which was in violation of principles of natural justice.
6. In Special Civil Application No. 13218 filed by the petitioner Patel Rajendrakumar Naranbhai, the challenge is made to the decision of laying electric line from petitioner's Survey No. 198/1 with further prayer to direct the respondent authorities to carry out laying of electric line as per their original plan passing through Survey No. 198 of village Valavdi, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned order dated 23.06.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 198/1, 198/2, 206/1 of village Valavdi. The respondent No. 4 - GETCO had decided to lay electric lines in respect of which notification was issued on 10.11.2011. The notices were issued to the concerned parties on 13.11.2012, according to which line was to pass through Survey No. 198, and the notice was issued to Vinodbhai Babubhai Page 8 of 19 HC-NIC Page 8 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Patel, however due to the undue influence and pressure of said Vinodbhai Patel, the alignment of the electric line was changed, and the respondent - Company had started excavation of foundation for electric poles in Survey No. 198/1 belonging to the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent had filed application before the District Magistrate, Mehsana, who vide the impugned order dated 23.06.2017 had allowed the said application, which is under challenged before this Court. The respondent No. 4 has filed the affidavit-in-reply denying the allegations made in the petition. It has been further stated that one Jairam Rabari had put forward his claim in respect of the land in question, and therefore, the notice was issued to the said person, however, when the petitioner claimed ownership of the said land, he was also issued with notice. Since the petitioner had raised objections against laying down the said lines, the respondent - GETCO had sought permission of the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. The District Magistrate had after hearing the said Jayram Rabari and the petitioner, passed the order on 23.06.2017.
7. Special Civil Application No. 6562 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner Manjibhai Laljibhai Savaliya and another, challenging the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the respondent Page 9 of 19 HC-NIC Page 9 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT No. 3 - District Magistrate, Amreli, and further sought direction against the respondent - GETCO not to erect electric lines and poles in the fields of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they were not served with any notice by the respondent - GETCO with regard to the proposed erection of electric poles in their fields, and though a straight route of erecting poles was available, in which route most of the Government's waste land was available, the route suggested by the petitioner was not adopted. The respondent - District Magistrate also without considering the objections raised by the petitioners, had passed by the impugned order. The respondent - GETCO has filed the affidavit- in-reply stating inter alia that on 12.01.2017, the petitioners were given notice about the work to be carried out in their fields, in response to which the petitioners had given reply on 19.01.2017. Since the petitioners were raising objections, the respondent - GETCO had approached the District Magistrate, who after granting the petitioners opportunity of hearing, had passed the order. According to this respondent, the route was selected only with the consideration that a clear corridor was available and the position of gantry for the purpose of taking out lines from substation was also required to be considered. It has been also stated that all care was taken to see that two towers were to be erected on the borders of the respective fields Page 10 of 19 HC-NIC Page 10 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT and the height of the towers was also increased at the cost of GETCO considering the request of the petitioner.
8. Special Civil Application No. 12210 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner Myajar Devraj Myatra seeking declaration that the respondents had no power, authority or competence to enter the premises of the petitioner for erection of electric lines unless and until the respondents acquired 229 sq. yards of land from the land bearing Survey No. 517 of village Rapar, District Kutch, and acquired right of user in the said survey number. According to the petitioner, the respondent - GETCO proposed to lay down overhead electric line so as to connect Bhadreshwar (OPG) power of Varsana to high tension 400KVA line, in highhanded manner and had illegally encroached upon the land of the petitioner bearing survey No. 517 of village Rapar. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent could not enter into the premises of the petitioner without any notice, and without any payment of compensation for occupying the piece of land, however, the respondent had dug the foundation pit more than 10 mtrs., and erected the pole, in the process the respondent had offered 2 cheques of Rs. 1 lac each. Thereafter, the petitioner was also given other cheques, which were of very meagre amount as against the damage caused to their land. The petitioner, thereafter, was Page 11 of 19 HC-NIC Page 11 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT shown the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Kutch which order was ex facie illegal. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent - GETCO, it has been stated inter alia that as per the settled legal position, the respondents were not required to acquire the land necessary for laying the high tension electric lines nor were required to obtain any consent of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the petition has already become infructuous as the respondent - Corporation has already completed the work and paid the compensation to the petitioner.
9. Special Civil Application No. 4960 of 2016 filed by the petitioner Ambrish Jivabhai Der and others is for challenging the legality and propriety of the action of the respondents in not removing the electric poles erected in the piece of land of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the respondent - GETCO had erected the electric poles in the land of the petitioner without their consent, and without paying the proper compensation for exercising their rights under the Telegraph Act. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent - GETCO, it has been contended that the lines in question were erected in the land in question after obtaining necessary permissions and the route approval from the competent authority after the issuance of notification by the Government of Gujarat for Page 12 of 19 HC-NIC Page 12 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT laying down the said lines. Individual notices were also issued to the land owners. Since Survey No. 336 was divided in various parts, and were in the names of various persons, all were served with the notices and were paid the compensation, which was accepted by them.
10. The Court has heard learned advocates Mr. S.P. Majmudar, Mr. Bhaumik Dholaria, Mr. Balram D. Jain, Mr. Devdip Brahmbhatt and Ms. Bela A. Prajapati for the respective petitioners, and Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the respondent - GETCO. The main contentions raised by the learned advocates for the petitioners were that the respondent - GETCO had no authority to lay the electric poles for transmission of electricity without consent of the owners and occupiers of the lands in which such poles were required to be erected. According to them, the respondent - GETCO is required to acquire the land for the purpose of erecting such poles and pay compensation accordingly to the owners of the land. The learned advocates have also raised the contention that the District Magistrate could not pass the order under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act for compensation, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the persons affected. However, the learned advocate Mr. Hasurkar for the respondent - GETCO has relied upon the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 39 of the Electricity Page 13 of 19 HC-NIC Page 13 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Act declaring it to be state transmission utility and the notification issued by the appropriate Government under Section 164 of the Electricity Act conferring powers on the GETCO for placing electric lines or electrical plant for transmission of electricity and submitted that the respondent - GETCO had the authority to erect the electric poles and the concerned petitioners having obstructed, the necessary orders under Section 16 were passed by the District Magistrate, on the respondent - GETCO having filed the objections. He has relied upon various decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court to buttress his submissions.
11. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having considered the documents on record, it appears that the Government of Gujarat in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection 1 of Section 39 of the Electricity Act, had notified vide the notification dated 29.05.2004, the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., Vadodara, subsidiary company of the Gujarat Electricity Board as the state transmission utility with effect from 01.06.2004. The functions of the State Transmission Utility inter alia are to undertake transmission of electricity through intra state transmission system as contemplated in subsection (2) of Section 39 of the Electricity Act. It is pertinent to note that the state transmission utility is deemed to Page 14 of 19 HC-NIC Page 14 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT be transmission licensee as per the second proviso to Section 14 of the Electricity Act. The duties of the transmission licensees are enumerated in Section 40 of the said Act. It further appears that the respondent - GETCO having been so declared, the Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers conferred under Section 164 of the Act, had issued further notification dated 05.01.2007, conferring powers of telegraph authority under Section Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to GETCO and its officers for laying electricity lines and erection of towers for supply and transmission of electricity in the state of Gujarat as deemed necessary subject to the conditions prescribed under the said notification. In view of the said two notifications, there remains no shadow of doubt that the respondent - GETCO has been declared as the state transmission utility under Section 39 and has been conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act with the powers of Telegraph authority under the Telegraph Act. Since the GETCO is treated as the Telegraph Authority, it shall have all such powers as are vested in Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act, including the power to eliminate any obstruction in laying down of power transmission line. The powers of Telegraph Authority conferred by Section 10, 15 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, therefore, stand vested in the GETCO.
Page 15 of 19HC-NIC Page 15 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
12. The issue as to whether the consent of the land owners before erecting the poles for electricity lines was required to be obtained by the respondent corporation or not, and whether the notice is required to be issued to the owners of the land before laying the poles or constructing tower or not, has been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel versus Chief Engineer (Project) Gujarat Energy Transmission and Others reported in 2011 (2) GLH 781, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under : -
"29. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 recognized the absolute power of the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited to proceed with placing of electric supply lines or electric polls for the transmission of electricity on or over the private lands subject to the right of the owner/occupier to claim compensation if any damage is sustained by him by reason of placing of such electric supply lines. In other words, neither the acquisition of the lands is necessary nor there is any need for consent of the owner or occupier.
30. At this stage, we would also like to refer to a Division Bench's judgment of this High Court rendered in the case of Killol V.Shelat v/s. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad and another, reported in 2009(1) GLH 13, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. This judgment has been relied upon in support of the contention that without affording opportunity of being heard, no order adverse to a person can be passed. Learned counsel has relied upon paragraph 30 of Page 16 of 19 HC-NIC Page 16 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT this judgment, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"It is by now well settled that without affording opportunity of being heard, no order adverse to a person can be passed. Principles of natural justice require that before taking action against the citizen, he must have a right to be heard. Such requirement of principles of natural justice can be abridged or even totally shut out. However, same can be done only by specific statutory provisions or by necessary implications. In other words, when the statute is silent, principles of natural justice can be read into it and unless a statutory provision specifically or by necessary implications dispenses with the principles of natural justice, hearing must be given before passing any adverse orders. In case of State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees' Association v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 610, the Apex Court observed that the requirements of natural justice will be read into statutory provisions unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication."
31. Relying on this principle of law which has been explained by the Division Bench, learned counsel has submitted that consent of the owner is a must before the electric polls are erected for the transmission of electricity.
32. We have exhaustively dealt with this issue in the above referred paragraphs and we have explained as to why consent is not necessary. The paragraph which has been relied upon by the learned counsel of the above referred judgment itself makes it clear that principles of natural justice can be read into a statute which is silent unless a statutory provision specifically or by necessary implications dispenses with the principles of natural justice. These observations are important.
33. As explained earlier that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Page 17 of 19 HC-NIC Page 17 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not acquiring any land, they are only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electric lines, for which, full compensation is given for the damage caused. It is clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before laying the polls or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them."
13. In view of the above, it is settled by the Division Bench that neither acquisition of land nor consent of the owners is required to be obtained prior to erection of poles or electric lines or transmission of electricity in or over the lands. Of course, the provision of Section 10(b) of the Telegraph Act, makes it clear that while acquiring the power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Governments does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property. Section 10(d) also obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible, and to pay compensation for the damage, if any, caused to the land in question for erecting such poles or lines. As rightly relied upon Section 16 of the Telegraph Act by Mr. Hasurkar, if any obstruction is caused to the telegraph authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 10, the District Magistrate has powers to pass the order to permit the telegraph authority to exercise its statutory powers. As per subsection 3 of Section 16, if any disputes arises concerning sufficiency of the Page 18 of 19 HC-NIC Page 18 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017 C/SCA/16946/2016 CAV JUDGMENT compensation, and as per subsection 4 of thereof, if any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation or as to the proportion in which persons interested are entitled to share in it, the concerned District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, after giving notice to the parties, has powers to determine such disputes.
14. In the instant cases, the concerned petitioners having resisted and obstructed the respondent - GETCO in erecting poles or laying electric lines as the case may be, the concerned District Magistrate had passed the order permitting the GETCO to carry out its functions and in most of the cases, the electric lines have already been energised also. It is needless to say that if any of the petitioners is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation paid under Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, he could make appropriate application before the concerned District Judge within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, as contemplated under Section 16 of the said Telegraph Act.
15. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in any of the petitions. All the petitions are dismissed accordingly. Notice are discharged in all the petitions.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) Amar Page 19 of 19 HC-NIC Page 19 of 19 Created On Thu Dec 28 23:30:49 IST 2017