Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Smt Ramavtari And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 21 July, 2023

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146273-DB
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21468 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt Ramavtari And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Varad Nath, Shri Aditya Sharma and Shri Anant Singh Ubeja for respondent nos.4 and 5. The vakalatnama filed by Shri Varad Nath on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 is taken on record.

2. Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned notices dated 13.6.2023 issued by respondent no.5 and for a direction to respondents to shift 765 KV S/C Mainpury Bara Line to non-residential area away from the petitioners house at Araji No.66 Village Chintapur, Arazi No.29-Chha Tubewell and Groove or in the alternative provide compensation at the market rate for the loss of the petitioners property.

3. It is contended that in the notification in question for installing the aforesaid transmission lines the village of the petitioner is not mentioned and as such the action of the respondents to install aforesaid transmission lines over the holding of the petitioners is not justified.

4. So far as factual aspect is concerned, the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. However, they submit that in case the high voltage transmission lines are being installed over the holding of the petitioners, they are entitled for adequate compensation.

5. In Deva Raj Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1977 Allahabad 452, a Division Bench of this Court had examined the provisions of Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is similar to the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and observed that in view of the notification issued by the State Government under Section 51 of the 1910 Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, the respondents have the power to instal the towers on the land owned by a person.

6. Similarly the Madras High Court, in E. Venkatesan & Ors. Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras & Ors., AIR 1977 Madras 64 while dealing with the powers under Section 51 of the Act of 1910, also observed :-

"From the above settled position of law, it is clear that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Section 51 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 electricity lines for which full compensation is given for the damage caused. It is also clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before laying the poles or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them."

7. This Court, in Writ C No.29995 of 2016 (Pooran Singh and 30 others vs. State of UP and 3 ors) decided on 5.7.2016, has observed that the construction of transmission power service lines cannot be stopped for want of payment of compensation. However, an appropriate direction can be issued to the competent authority for determining the compensation in accordance with law and pay the same to the tenure holders over whose land the towers are being erected.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to keep the matter pending consideration. We accordingly dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate with regard to their claim alongwith certified copy of this order and other supported materials within ten days, whereupon the District Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 SP/