Kerala High Court
M/S. Power Grid Corporation Of India ... vs The State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2014/7TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 22382 of 2013 (W)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------------
M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES), CHANDINI,
PLOT NO.190/B, MAVELIPURAM COLONY,KAKKANAD P.O.,
KOCHI- 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL
MANAGER,MR.T.T. PAIKADA.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL
SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001.
2. THE POWER DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
POWER (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE),
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
4. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF/DGP,
KERALA POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN -691 001.
6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,
PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN- 689 645.
7. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
R1 TO R8 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11-04-2014, THE COURT ON 28-05-2014 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 22382 of 2013 (W)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: GAZETTE GOVERNMENT ORDER 27TH NOVEMBER 2003.
EXHIBIT-P2: GAZETTE GOVERNMENT ORDER 24.12.2003.
EXHIBIT-P3: LETTER REF.NO.12/18/2003-PG DATED 25.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PGCIL.
EXHIBIT-P4: MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 05.03.2004 OF STANDING COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT-P5: MINUTES DATED 22.05.2008 HELD BY CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT-P6: MINUTES MEETING DATED 14.08.2008 HELD BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT-P7: MINUTES MEETING DATED 19.08.2008 HELF BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT-P8: MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 30.08.2008 HELF BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT-P9: MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 10.11.2008 HELF BY DISTRICT
COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT-P10: G.O.DATED 09.03.2009.
EXHIBIT-P11: G.O.DATED 04.02.2010.
EXHIBIT-P12: G.O.DATED 04.06.2010.
EXHIBIT-P13: G.O.DATED 14.01.2011.
EXHIBIT-P14: MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 29.12.2010 HELD BY HON'BLE MINISTER
(REVENUE), HON.MINISTER (WSC & ELE) & OPPOSITION LEADER.
EXHIBIT-P15: MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 18.07.2011, 25.07.2011, 05.08.2011 AND
25/08/2011 AND 03.09.2011 HELD BY CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT-P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2007 IN WRIT PETITION (C)
NO.18371/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P16(A): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.7.2007 IN WRIT PETITION (C)
22864/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P17: MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 28.10.2011 CONVENED BY HON'BLE
CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT-P18: MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS DATED 17.01.2012 AND 14.02.2012 HELD
BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER.
EXHIBIT-P19: LETTERS DATED 30.01.2013 FROM SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO
THE PETITIONER AND 06.02.2013 FROM THE PETITIONER TO
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (POWER).
sts 2/-
-2-
WP(C)NO.22382/2013
EXHIBIT-P20: LETTER DATED 4.05.2013 FROM THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.
T.T. PAIKADA.
EXHIBIT-P21: LIST OF THE CASES PENDING AS ON DATE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS AND ANNEXURES:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14/10/09
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27/01/10
EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21/05/10
EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/07/2010 OF THE CHIEF
MANAGER (TRANSMISSION LINES), PGCIL ADDRESSED TO THE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (REVENUE)
EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/3/2011
ANNEX A COPY OF THE DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT OF LAND IN
RESPECT OF JONEY SEBASTIAN
ANNEX B COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.3006 DATED 3/1/2011 ISSUED TO
POWERGRID CORPORATION
ANNEX C COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF OUSEPH
ABRAHAM
ANNEX D COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.3007 DATED 3/1/2011 ISSUED TO
POWERGRID CORPORATION
ANNEX E COPY OF THE DETAILED VALUATION STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF
K.O.SABU
ANNEX F COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.3009 DATED 3/1/2011 ISSUED TO
POWERGRID CORPORATION
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 22382 of 2013
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May , 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner Corporation is a Government of India establishment, which is incorporated as a Government Company. The petitioner is a "Central Transmission Utility" envisaged under Section 38 and 40 of the Electricity Act, 2003 . By virtue of section 164 of the said Act, the petitioner is vested with powers of "Telegraph Authority" envisaged under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, empowered to exercise powers vested under section 10 of the said Act. As per section 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the "Central Transmission Utility" is deemed to be a "transmission licensee". Relevant notification issued in this regard by the Central Government is produced as Ext.P2.
2. The petitioner Corporation was entrusted with the work of establishing transmission lines and sub stations associated with the Nuclear Power Project at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu. Among various transmission lines proposed under the project, one is the 400 KV Quad D/C line from Edamon to Kochi WP(C). 22382 /2013 2 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'project'). Total cost estimated for the project is Rs.1,779.29 Crores, as evidenced from Ext.P3 approval granted by the Union Government. The State Government, 1st respondent herein, had approved the route of the transmission line, after examining feasibility of the transmission corridors in association with KSEB and Central Electricity Authority. Ext.P4 is the approval obtained from the Central Electricity Authority. Accordingly survey work for drawing the transmission line from Edamon to Kochi was finalised, considering all technical and other parameters. The work in question was entrusted with the petitioner Corporation as early as in the year 2008 and the work related to the establishment of the transmission line in other segments stands completed, except from Edamon to Kochi, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.
3. The area wherein the work remains incomplete is only 148 KM which passes through the District of Kollam,Pathanamthitta, Kottayam and Ernakulam, crossing the lines situated over about 45 villages. The initial project cost in WP(C). 22382 /2013 3 Edamon - Kochi segment was about Rs.256 Crores, which was funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It is stated that, because of incompletion of the work of Edamon - Kochi segment, the transmission line from Tirunellveli to Edamon cannot be commissioned and the line is remaining idle in the area where it is already established. According to the petitioner, the entire project ought to have been completed before March 2010, as per the initial schedule. But the petitioner is repeatedly facing objections and obstructions from the land owners. Hence implementation of the project was delayed causing severe prejudice to the petitioner Corporation as well as the power project envisaged by the Central Government. Meeting of various levels were convened by the State Government as well as by the District Collectors for facilitating progress of the work. It was decided to commence the work within the Ernakulam District immediately. Those meetings were held in the year 2008.
4. The 1st respondent thereafter issued Ext. P10 order in March 2009 specifying the rate of compensation payable by the petitioner Corporation with respect to, line corridor area and WP(C). 22382 /2013 4 tower footing locations at 20% , 40% and 50% of the land value for paddy fields, garden lands and Rubber plantations respectively. The petitioner contended that the Corporation has got only user right in respect of the land over which the transmission line is drawn and the tower is placed. Therefore, fixation of compensation based on land value was illegal and ultra vires of the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent again issued Ext.P11 reclassifying the land area into two categories viz. paddy fields and garden land and fixing compensation at the rate of 40% and 70% and also stipulated an ex-gratia payment of 20% for land covered under the line corridors in addition to the above compensation. On 4.6.2010 the 1st respondent further issued another order as per Ext.P12, in which the earlier orders were sought to be modified and formulating compensation for 'tower footing area' as well as the ex-gratia for the land below the 'line corridor' based on the fair value of land notified by the Government. Yet another order, Ext.P13, was issued by the Government modifying Ext.P11 and providing ex-gratia at the WP(C). 22382 /2013 5 rate of 20% even for the 'line corridors' where there are existing KSEB lines.
5. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P10, P11 P12 and P13 mainly on the ground that, provisions contained in the Telegraph Act does not authorises the 1st respondent to assess compensation or to prescribe terms with respect to valuation and estimation of the compensation. It is contended that sufficiency of the compensation to be paid by the petitioner by virtue of section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act is within the realm of power vested on the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. With respect to the impugned orders, the Government have exercised its jurisdiction by committing an illegality and material irregularity.
6. Further contention of the petitioner is that the authority vested with power under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act to permit drawal of electric line when there is any obstruction, had failed in exercising such power, despite specific requests made in this regard. The Government convened a meeting to discuss the issue regarding the obstructions caused WP(C). 22382 /2013 6 and took a decision as per Ext.P14 to form a grievance redressal committee consisting of the District Collectors, MLA's and Panchayat Presidents etc. The obstruction caused with respect to drawing of line in certain areas were considered by the said committees and decisions were taken to permit drawing of the line, finding that the alternate routes proposed are not feasible. In the meanwhile fixation of alignment of the transmission line also was disputed before this court. But the request to change the alignment was negatived on the basis of report submitted by the expert body. Exts. P16 and P16 (a) judgments of this court are referred to in this context.
7. In view of protest and objections raised from the side of the local people the Government again interfered to formulate a comprehensive compensation package. But the petitioner Corporation was reluctant to accept any such proposal which will fetch liability to pay compensation in contrary to the provisions contained in the Telegraph Act. Such proposal will cause additional burden to the Corporation to the tune of approximately Rs.225 Crores. In a meeting convened by the State Government WP(C). 22382 /2013 7 on 10.12.2012, it was agreed that the State Government will bear the additional compensation arising out of the package proposed. But it was insisted that the expenses should be incurred by the petitioner Corporation and it will be reimbursed subsequent to completion of the project. But it is alleged that no minutes pertaining to the said meeting was evolved or circulated. In the meanwhile, Secretary to the State Government, Department of Power, had issued a letter on 30.1.2013 to the petitioner proposing modification of Exts.P10 to P13 GO's enhancing the compensation for 'tower footing locations' from 70% to 100% and ex-gratia payment for corridors' from 20% to 40% . Further it was proposed that the market value of the land can be assessed at 2 = times of the fair value. The petitioner made a reply to the said letter as per Ext.P19, disagreeing with the proposal stating that it is contrary to the provisions of law. The petitioner had informed the Government through Ext.P20 that they are not in a position to commence the work which was delayed inordinately resulting in heavy additional expenses due to the huge financial burden cast upon due to the compensation WP(C). 22382 /2013 8 packages envisaged. The State Government was called upon to issue necessary corrigendum to the minutes of the meeting held on 23-04-2013.
8. It is pointed out that, various land owners were already paid compensation and they have approached the District Court concerned seeking enhancement of the compensation, invoking Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Contention of the petitioner is that the Government is not acquiring any land even at the tower footing area or for the corridor of the line. No compensation can be paid on the basis of the land value and the proposal of the Government contained in various impugned orders are contrary to legal provisions and they are infringing the powers vested on the Corporation as a 'Telegraph authority' envisaged under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is alleged that there is failure on the part of respondents 5 to 8 who are District Magistrates vested with power under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act to grant permission for drawal of the transmission line by removing the obstructions. It is further contended that the impugned orders supplants provisions of the WP(C). 22382 /2013 9 Electricity Act and the Indian Telegraph Act and the power exercised in this regard does not confirm to the statutory powers vested on the Government. It is pointed out that the petitioner had already paid compensation for tree cutting, to the tune of Rs.3,34,85,303/- and also paid Rs.58,08,319/- towards compensation for the land in tower footing area. Respondents 5 to 8 have failed in discharging their duties in passing orders as envisaged under Section 16 (1). Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that, compensation was already paid in many of the cases and that Corporation had already deposited sufficient amounts in District Treasury to satisfy the award of enhanced compensation, as enumerated in Ext.P21 list. Under such circumstances the petitioner inter alia seeks direction to respondents 5 to 8 to remove the obstructions/resistances against drawal of the transmission line and also seeks direction to the respondents to render necessary protection, assistance and security for execution of the work in question.
9. Fundamental issue raised in this writ petition pertains to power of the State Government in fixing compensation to the WP(C). 22382 /2013 10 land owners who are affected by drawing of the transmission line. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 confers power on the authority to place and to maintain any telegraph line under or over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property. Sub section (d) provides that in exercise of such power the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and when it exercise those powers in respect of any private property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested to the extent of damages sustained by them by reason of exercise of such power. Further, Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act provides that if any dispute arises with respect to sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10 (d), the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property situate can determine the compensation on the basis of an application submitted for the said purpose. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner has an obligation to pay compensation as contemplated under Section 10 (d) and if any persons affected by drawing of the line feels that the compensation paid is not sufficient, he has got a statutory WP(C). 22382 /2013 11 remedy by way of approaching the District Court seeking determination of just and proper compensation. In the case at hand it is evident that the State Government have authorised the revenue authorities to determine the compensation payable with respect to drawing of the transmission line in question. By virtue of terms of the agreement executed, the petitioner is bound to pay compensation so fixed by the revenue authorities. It is needless to observe that, the petitioner Corporation will be bound by awards passed by the District Judge enhancing such compensation. But the Government cannot usurp into such powers and formulate any packages fixing compensation or prescribing parameters with respect to payment of compensation, is the contention. The impugned orders are challenged mainly on these aspects.
10. In a statement filed on behalf of the 8th respondent it is stated that, a Special Land Acquisition Unit was created at Ernakulam for fixing compensation in connection with drawing of transmission line, Edamon-Cochin-Thrissur, which had started functioning on 05-07-2010. The inspection and fixation of value WP(C). 22382 /2013 12 for determination of compensation was already done in many cases in accordance with the criteria enumerated under the Government orders which are under challenge.
11. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3 a counter affidavit is filed with the following contentions. It is admitted that there were obstructions raised against the conduct of survey and completion of the construction works. Intervention of the Government all such issues were sought for by the petitioner. The Government have also received various complaints and mass petitions enumerating grievances with respect to drawing of the line. It is stated that in a meeting convened by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 19-09-2006, consensus was arrived to the effect that the petitioner Corporation would examine feasibility of alternate proposals submitted by the 'Action Council'. But subsequently the Government found that the alternate arrangements are not feasible and therefore the District Collectors were entrusted with the task of sorting out the issues relating to drawing of the line, in areas within their jurisdiction. Various instances are pointed out to the effect that, the District Collectors had considered WP(C). 22382 /2013 13 feasibility of the alternate routes suggested. In the meeting held by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 21-01-2009 it was decided to constitute an additional 'Special Revenue Unit' for assessment of compensation and the petitioner Corporation agreed to meet the administrative cost in this regard. The issue regarding adequacy of the compensation being paid for trees/crops was also discussed after detailed discussion Ext.P10 Government order was issued based on the decisions arrived in the meeting. The respondents have produced Ext.R2 (a) which is the minutes of the meeting held at the Government level in order to point out that the authorities of the petitioner Corporation had agreed to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P10 Government order with respect to payment of compensation towards damages caused at the tower footing locations. In the meetings held on 14-10-2009 and 27-01-2010, inter alia it was decided that 4 types of compensation i.e., compensation for crops damaged and trees cut, compensation for the land utilised for tower area, compensation for the line corridor and damages to buildings and structures if any, would be provided to affected owners. Exhibit WP(C). 22382 /2013 14 R2 (b) minutes of the meeting held on 27-01-2010 is produced to show that the petitioner's representatives participated in the meeting had never raised any objection in fixing criteria with respect to payment of compensation. According to respondents 1 to 3 Ext.P11 Government order was issued only on the basis of the said meeting. So also respondents have produced Ext.R2 (c) which is the minutes of the meeting held on 21-05-2010 which led to finalisation of Ext.P12 Government order. Based on the above factual aspects it is contended that the petitioner Corporation had already agreed to stand by various decisions taken by the Government, including revision of compensation packages, in the interest of early completion of the project and to facilitate fixation of compensation based on such packages. Exhibit R2 (e) letter issued by the petitioner Corporation to the 1st respondent is produced to support such a contention. It is stated that the petitioner had already agreed to stand by various decisions already taken by the Government including revision of compensation packages which is mutually agreed and settled in different forms. Therefore the contention of the respondents is WP(C). 22382 /2013 15 that the petitioner cannot turn around and disown the decisions taken in their presence with due concurrence. According to respondents 1 to 3 the petitioner Corporation is not justified in denying the liability for payment of compensation based on those decisions. However it is conceded in the counter affidavit that subsequent revision of the compensation package was proposed in view of stiff protest raised by the Action Council and meetings were convened with all the MLAs and MPs of the area concerned. It is further agreed that the Government have requested the representatives of the Action Council to furnish proposal for proceeding further in the matter. It is proposed to convene joint meeting to discuss the issue further. According to the respondents the impugned Government orders are issued only on the basis of the obligation cast upon under Section 10 of the Act to compensate the damages which will be caused by drawing of the line. It is contended that there was no inaction on the part of the respondents 5 to 8, because they have taken all earnest efforts in finding amicable solution to the issues, without creating any threat to law and order situation and to see that the project WP(C). 22382 /2013 16 is implemented. Eventhough meetings were called for by the District Collectors concerned, a settlement could not be arrived and hence the petitioner cannot go ahead with the further construction activities, is the contention. It is mentioned that the Government is of the view that a realistic and reasonable approach is essential to address the issue as the compensation for trees/crops alone would not be sufficient for persons affected, who are loosing full utility of the land when the transmission line is drawn. It is only under such context the impugned Government orders are issued, is the contention.
12. While analysing the issue involved, this court is convinced that to a certain extent the petitioner Corporation had consented while participating in the meetings convened by the Government to formulate compensation packages. But from the facts it is evident that despite the Government convening repeated meetings and revising packages, the petitioner Corporation was prevented through obstructions and protests from proceeding with the work and from completing the project. As mentioned in the writ petition, the work in question is WP(C). 22382 /2013 17 connected with the Nuclear Power Project, Koodamkulam. The work was entrusted with the petitioner early in the year 2005. It is pertinent to note that establishment of the transmission lines and Sub Stations stands completed except in the sector of Edamon-Cochin. The project is envisaged to cater the needs for power requirement of the State, to a great extent in a vast area. The Government is not supposed to take any lethargic attitude in facilitating completion of the project in a time bound manner. While considering the legal contentions raised, this court is fully satisfied with the statutory powers vested on the competent authorities under the Indian Telegraph Act, with respect to fixation of compensation. The State Government cannot assume any statutory role in the matter of exercise of such power. At the same time, decision if any taken on the basis of consensus arrived between the petitioner and representatives of the affected persons cannot be termed as such as an en rode to the jurisdiction vested on the statutory authorities. It is to be considered that the Government have only formulated guidelines or parameters in fixing the compensation. Contention of the WP(C). 22382 /2013 18 respondents to the extent that the petitioner had participated in such meetings and had consented for payment of compensation in tune with those packages has to be accepted as true and correct. But at the same time it is revealed from the facts enumerated that the petitioner was prevented from continuing with the work and from completing the same, despite fixation of such packages. There is no instances pointed out to the effect that the petitioner had failed in making payment of compensation fixed by the revenue authorities concerned. Nor there is any instance where the petitioner had failed to effect payment of the additional/enhanced compensation fixed by the District Courts. But it is evident that the Government is convening meetings after meetings to discuss the issue and is persuading the Corporation to concede for more and more enhancement of the compensation packages on each time. Such an unending procedure will definitely defeat the total project. Under such context the legal contentions raised with respect to jurisdiction and power, assumes importance.
13. This court cannot omit notice of the fact that various WP(C). 22382 /2013 19 inter district transmission lines of high voltage were already drawn in the State by the KSEB, after payment of due compensation as enumerated under provisions of the relevant statute. In all such cases the affected persons were satisfied with determination of compensation made by the District Courts. Merely because there were protest among the people or merely because the peoples' representatives are taking initiative to lead such protest, it is not justified on the part of the Government to interfere every time and to seek amicable settlement by persuading the petitioner Corporation to concede for enhancement of the compensation package at every time.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation had produced for perusal many complaints submitted before the District Collectors requesting to remove the obstructions and to permit drawing of line. The respondents 5 to 8 are not supposed to keep inaction on such applications considering the powers vested under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. Any dereliction on the part of those authorities in discharging the statutory function is to be viewed seriously. It is to be noticed WP(C). 22382 /2013 20 that wherever there are physical obstructions in drawing the line the matter has to be dealt with by the District Magistrates concerned by invoking Section 16 (1). If any further obstruction is caused in execution of the work despite any orders issued permitting drawing of the line, such actions need to be considered only as illegal and as wanton acts of people taking law into their own hands. The State in such circumstances is bound to act and to afford adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner Corporation to fulfill its obligations of the contract, in a legal manner, especially when it is intended to achieve an object which is useful for the public at large.
15. Under the above mentioned circumstances, eventhough this court is not inclined to quash Exts.P10 to P13 orders, the 1st respondent is directed to take necessary action to direct the officials of the 'Special Land Acquisition Units' entrusted with the task of finalisation of the compensation with respect to drawing of the line from Edamon-Cochin to finalise the work on an early basis without any further delay and to facilitate the petitioner Corporation to proceed with execution of the work for WP(C). 22382 /2013 21 establishment of the transmission line.
16. The respondents 5 to 8 or the Additional District Magistrates of the District concerned, who are authorised to exercise power vested under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 are directed to adjudicate and deal with the applications if any submitted by the petitioner Corporation seeking removal of obstructions and permission for drawing of the line. Such complaints if any received shall be dealt with expeditiously, after affording opportunity to the persons who are creating such obstructions. All such applications if any pending shall be disposed at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Fresh applications if any received in this regard shall also be dealt with on expeditious basis and shall be disposed of within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of such applications.
17. The petitioner shall make necessary further deposit of amounts to be paid as compensation which will be determined by the officials of the Land Acquisition Wing or which will be enhanced through awards passed by the District Courts WP(C). 22382 /2013 22 concerned. The officials entrusted with finalisation of the valuation and fixation of compensation will determine the compensation payable in accordance with law and settled legal precedents. They will be at liberty to adopt the guidelines contained in Exts.P10 to P13 Government orders, if it is found eligible.
The writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the above directions.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
Pmn/AMG
WP(C). 22382 /2013 23
WP(C). 22382 /2013 24