The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim for compensation for land acquisition is subject to the statutory period of limitation, and the retrospective effect of government resolutions needs to be substantiated.

JUDGMENT :

Y. G. Khobragade, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are owners of their respective lands and affected by installation of towers for electric transmission of 132 KV electric line erected in the year 1981 under the scheme known as Ujani Umerga line, pray for quashing and setting aside the order dated 04.07.2018 passed in Case No. 138 of 2018 by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission and praying rental compensation.

3. According to the petitioners, they are the owners of land bearing Gat Nos. 57/B admeasuring 1 H 51 Are, Gat No. 49/K admeasuring 3 H 8 Are, Gt No. 59/1/2/5 admeasuring 5 H. 50 Are, Gat No. 60/3/6 admeasuring 1 H 19 Are, Gat No. 247 admeasuring 1 H. 47 Are and Gat No. 46/2/3/4/5/ admeasuring 2 H situated at Wangi and Ashiv Tq.Ausa Dist. Latur respectively. In the year 1981, the respondent- Transmission Company erected total 11 high tension electricity 132 KV transmission towers under Ujani Omerga line scheme i.e. three towers in the filed of the petitioner No.1, two towers in field of the petitioner No.5 and one tower each in the fields of petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 7. Due to erection of said towers, approximately area about 15 x 15 sq. ft. occupied by each tower and 10 ft. area surrounding to the each tower is also under non-cultivation Therefore, they are deprived of use and enjoyment of agricultural yields of their land to the extent land occupied by the towers since 1981. The Respondent - Transmission Company neither initiated any proceeding for acquisition of land for installation of towers nor they paid compensation. So also, the Revenue Authority has not mutated name of the respondent- Transmission Company to the extent of said area. According to the petitioners, their consent was not obtained while erecting the towers. Therefore, they approached to the respondents- authorities and payed for award of compensation as per the Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010. Further, on 25.11.2013, when the officials of the respondent-Transmission Company entered into the their agricultural land for trimming of trees branches standing near towers, at that time also they lodged their grievance about non payment of compensation for installation of high tension transmission line, but their grievance has not been considered. Therefore, on 17.11.2014, they filed an Appeal with the District Collector, Latur for compensation and rent, however, on 30.01.2015 the said appeal was rejected for want of jurisdiction and their claim barred by limitation.

4. Being aggrieved by said decision, they preferred Writ Petition No. 9674/2016 before this Court, but on 06.09.2017, the said petition came to be disposed of on ground that the petitioners have alternate remedy under the Statute. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission ('the Electricity Regulatory Commission' for short) by filing Case No. 138/2018. On 04.07.2018, the Electricity Regulatory Commission rejected their claim on the ground that the electricity towers in the fields of the petitioners are erected in the year 1981 and compensation claimed for acquisition of land for erection of high tension lines was after lapse of several years and Government Resolution dated 01.11.2010 does not have retrospective effect for the land acquired in the year 1981.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the year 1981 132 KV transmission towers are erected in the agricultural fields of the petitioners without their permission and without payment of compensation. The State Government issued Resolution dated 01.11.2010, which provides for grant of compensation to the agriculturists whose lands are affected due to erection of high tension electricity line but the respondent-Transmission Company failed to pay the compensation. Section 67 of the Electricity