Allahabad High Court
Umatuz Zahra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 July, 2023
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144953-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23576 of 2023 Petitioner :- Umatuz Zahra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Srivastava,Kumar Vikrant Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent no.1 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4.
2. The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately remove the electricity poles on the land of the petitioner and to pay the rent for the period of two years @ Rs.1,20,000/- per annum for the use of the land of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased a residential plot area 164 sq. meters in Arazi No.2623, Mohalla Nibhara, District Fatehpur from one Sharif Ahmad through registered sale deed dated 27.8.20213 and her name has been recorded in the revenue record. It is alleged that the respondents have installed underground cable of 11000 volts and also erected the electricity poles on the land. The petitioner wants to construct a house on the aforesaid plot but due to illegal encroachment, she is unable to construct the house. In case no reprieve is accorded, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
4. The claim of the petitioner has been opposed by Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, appearing for the respondents.
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. We accordingly dispose of this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate with regard to her claim alongwith certified copy of this order and other supported materials, whereupon the District Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.7.2023 RKP