A person can waive a right or benefit that is conferred upon them by a statute, if the right or benefit is solely for their own benefit and does not involve any public policy.

JUDGMENT :-

(Avinash G. Gharote, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally.

2. By the present petition challenge is raised to the communication dated 31/5/2019, issued by the respondent no.3, refusing to grant compensation to the petitioner in respect of the towers erected on the land of Survey No.68.

3. The facts leading to the present petition are as under:-

(a) A 132 KV transmission line was proposed to be laid down for transmission of electricity from Khaperkheda to Butibori. The line was sanctioned and the work was commenced some time in the year 2007 - 2008. Two towers namely tower Nos.16 and 17 were proposed to be laid in the land of Survey No.68, which land, as per the revenue records, was shown to be owned by Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Kinkhede and others, as a result of which, a notice was issued to them informing that the towers for the transmission line, would be erected in the land of Survey No.68.

(b) Being aggrieved by the above communication, Smt. Vijyalaxmi Kinkhede and others filed Writ Petition No.260/2008 which came to be withdrawn on 17/3/2008 on the ground that the petitioners therein were willing to pay extra amount towards expenditure required for diversion of transmission line and the diverted route would be from the boundary of Survey No.68.

(c) Accordingly as per the request of Smt. Vijayalaxmi Kinkhede and others the respondent No.3 quantified the expenditure required for diversion of the transmission line, at Rs.42,43,872/- and a demand-note dated 2/7/2008 in this respect was issued to Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Kinkhede and others, however, there was no response. Further reminders dated 30/7/2008 and 18/8/2008, also did not elicit any response, or payment.

(d) As the work was getting delayed, excavation work for the foundation of the two towers in Survey No.68 was commenced on 22/11/2008, when obstruction was caused, as a result of which, the respondent no.3, approached the District Magistrate under section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Telegraph Act, 1885 hereinafter), which was registered as Case No. MRC – 81/3/08 in which, Mrs Vijayalaxmi Kinkhede and others were made non-applicants.

(e) Consequent to notice being received, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Kinkhede intimated that the part of the property admeasuring 24.75 acres including the area in which the two towers were proposed to be erected, had been purchased by M/s Milestone Buildspace Private Ltd. Notices were issued to the purchaser, whereupon M/s Milestone Buildspace Private Ltd. appeared and stated that its name had been now changed to M/s Harihar Buildspace Private Limited, i.e., petitioner. The area admeasuring 24.74 acres out of the land of Survey No.68 as purchased by the present petitioner was renumbered as Survey Nos.68/2 to 68/5, whereas the area as retained by the original landowners Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Kinkhede and others was renumbered as Survey No.68/1. The location Nos.16 and 17 of the two towers to be erected for the transmission line, fell within the land of Survey Nos.68/2 to 68/5, now owned by the present petitioner. This land is claimed to have been converted to non-agricultural use by way of an order passed by the collector Nagpur on 28/3/ 2007.

(f) It appears that in these proceedings the District Magistrate advised the respondent no.3 that the present petitioner was not causing any obstruction, therefore, the cause to proceed, did not survive, as a result of which, the proceedings were disposed of on 2/2/2010.

(g) As 90% of the work of the entire transmission line was complete except a few locations where obstructions/ resistance was caused by the land owners/occupiers, the respondent no.3 by a notice dated 5/2/2010 indicated its intention to proceed with the work as per the original plan.

(h) The present petitioner, therefore, filed an application under section 17(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which was numbered as Case No.4/MRC – 81–2010, seeking change of the route of the transmission l