Allahabad High Court
Vijaypal Saran vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2971 of 2020 Petitioner :- Vijaypal Saran Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri K.R. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent The present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:-
"I) Issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the District Judge, District Sambhal to register the applicant of the petitioner filed under Section 16(3) of the Act and decide the same expeditiously as possible.
II) Issue a writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, District Sambhal on 26.06.2020 rejection the petitioner's claim for payment of compensation."
The facts leading to the filing of the present case in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land bearing plot no.28 (Gata no.28 Rakwa) ad measuring 4127 square meters out of a total land area of 623 hectares situated in Village Alam Sarai within Municipal Limits, District Sambhal. The said land was resumed by the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) for drawing five high tension power transmission lines of 33 KV, 11 KV etc. without any consent or payment of any compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred Writ C no.42068 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2019 with the direction to District Magistrate, Sambhal that in case the petitioner's land has been used for erecting the high tension power transmission line, his claim be considered and appropriate order be passed after giving opportunity to all the the stake holders. For ready reference, the order dated 18.12.2019 is extracted as under:-
"Heard Sri Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of the present petition the petitioner has raised a grievance that the electricity department has erected the high tension power transmission line on the land of the petitioner without his consent or payment of any compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the division Bench Judgement of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 29995 of 2016 (Pooram Singh and 30 others Vs. State of U.P. and three others) decided on 5.7.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).
In similar circumstances, the District Magistrate was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner who has been made competent authority by adopting provisions of Indian Telegraph Act.
As such, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to District Magistrate, Sambhal, Respondent No.4 that in case the petitioner's land has been used for erecting the high tension power transmission line, the claim of the petitioner be considered and an appropriate order be passed after giving opportunity to the other side within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
In response thereof, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation on 18.12.2019 before the District Magistrate, Sambhal, which was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2020 relying on the inspection/survey report dated 25.06.2020 submitted by Additional District Magistrate, District Sambhal and Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Sambhal. While rejecting the said claim, the ground has been taken that mere drawing of one 11 KV high tension electric transmission wire over the land does not entitle the petitioner to claim compensation. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 16(3) of the Telegragh Act 1855 (in brevity the 'Act') before the District Judge, District Sambhal on 28.07.2020.
Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in most arbitrary manner, the Court below has refused to accept any such application and returned the same on the premise that no such claim lies before the Court of learned District Judge. He submits that the property in question is located well within the jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Sambhal and, therefore, the applicant/petitioner has every right to invoke the remedy as available under Section 16(3) of the Act before learned District Judge, Sambhal. Duty is cast upon the District Judge him to adjudicate the dispute arising out of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 16 (1) of the Act.
In support of his submission, Shri Mithal has place reliance on the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mani Subrat Jain vs. State of Haryana 1977(1) SCC 486, wherein, it has been held that a person is said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing anything. He has also placed reliance on the judgement passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ C no.29995/2016 (Pooram Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others), dated 05.07.2016 and submits that once no compensation is accorded under the Act, the applicant can approach the authority under Section 16(3) and in case the department has any objection qua to the compensation, the said objection can also be looked into and examined by the competent authority under the Act itself.
Per contra, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that in case the application is entertained definitely at the said stage, right may be accorded to the department concerned to file an objection on both grounds i.e. maintainability and quantum of compensation.
Without entering into the merits of the case, with the consent of parties, the present writ petition is disposed of asking the District Judge/Authority to entertain the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 16(3) of the Act. So far as the question of maintainability of the said application is concerned, as has been framed and drawn the same can very well be examined and considered by the Authority and if he finds the same as maintainable, definitely the same is to be decided on its own merits but certainly after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders in the matter. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the memo of appeal be returned to him after placing the photocopy of he same alongwith record.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 11.11.2020 A. Pandey