Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :J.N.Bhatt
JIVIBEN MOTIBHAI PATEL - Appellant
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C and M),gujarat ELECTRICITY BOARD,baroda - Respondent
S.C.A. 3015 of 1981
Decided On : 09/15/1994
Electricity – Indian Electricity Act, 1910 – Section 12 – Electricity (Supply) Act – Section 42 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Payment of compensation on account of damages – Removal of electric poles – Compensation – Petitioner preferred an application under provisions of Sec. 12 of Act, 1910 requesting District Magistrate to direct respondent No. 1, Gujarat Electricity board to remove electric poles which are erected in his agricultural land and also for an order for payment of compensation on account of damages caused to his crops and agricultural land – Challenged – Petitioners case before District Magistrate, Baroda in the said application was that the Board, without his consent and despite his objection, illegally placed two poles in his field damaging his crops in a part of the land. It was also contended that the said action of giving electric connection by the Board could have been conveniently and more easily done by taking it from the northern side of the karjan Society where the said line was existing to extreme north of the land on which the said Society was existing – Held, In view of aforesaid provisions, compensation could be awarded by Board and not Additional District Magistrate, as provided under Sec. 12 of Electricity Act – It is true that if adequacy of compensation is challenged or amount of compensation given by Board/authority is not acceptable to owner or occupier, person affected thereby will have a right to approach District Judge under Sec. 16. Section 16 (3) provides that for purpose of any dispute concerning sufficiency of compensation to be paid under clause (d) of Sec. 10, either of disputing parties is entitled to approach District Judge concerned within whose jurisdiction property is situated for purpose of determination of amount of compensation – Word compensation no doubt is not statutorily defined – However, it would embrace in its purview any actual loss suffered by a party – For instance, if trees had to be cut or certain structure had to be altered or demolished, in that case, a question of paying compensation would arise but question as to what loss a party would suffer in case he was prevented from making any construction or using roof would not come within the meaning of word compensation – It is not clear from the record as to what was original amount claimed by petitioner – Compensation ought to have been paid immediately after completion of work carried out by Board – There is as such delay of more than one and half decades – It would be just and appropriate to award by way of compensation to petitioner, including damages – In light of the relevant legal position discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that present petition is meritless, and except the quantum of compensation, the entire petition deserves to be dismissed – Directions issued – Petition partly allowed.
( 1 ) THE challenge in this petition is against the order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Industries, Mines and Power Department, Government of gujarat in the revision application preferred by the Gujarat Electricity Board, reversing the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda, by invoking the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) A few relevant material facts leading to filing of the petition may be stated at the outset. The petitioner preferred an application on 15-1-1969 under the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (electricity Act for short) requesting the District Magistrate to direct respondent No. 1, Gujarat Electricity board, (the Board for short) to remove the electric poles which are erected in his agricultural land bearing S. No. 646/2 in village Karjan, Baroda District and also for an order for payment of compensation on account of damages caused to his crops and agricultural land.
( 3 ) THE petitioners case before the District Magistrate, Baroda in the said application was that the Board, without his consent and despite his objection, illegally placed two poles in his field damaging his crops in a part of the land. It was also contended that the said action of giving electric connection by the Board could have been conveniently and more easily done by taking it from the northern side of the karjan Society where the said line was existing to the extreme north of the land on which the said Society was existing.
( 4 ) THUS, the contention of the petitioner was that the Board could have taken direct and straight line from the existing line without disturbing his field. Despite the objection, the poles were placed in his field. Therefore, he requested that the poles should be removed and compensation should be paid to him as the action was illegal. He entered into correspondence with the officers of the Board but as there was no response to his request for removal of poles from his field, he filed the application under Sec. 12 of the Electricity Act before the District Magistrate, Baroda.
( 5 ) THE Board, while opposing the said application, inter alia contended that the action of the Board in putting the poles and taking electric connection on and over the field of the petitioner was legal. The Board also relied on provisions of sec. 51 of the Electricity Act and contended that the provisions of Sec. 42 are not applicable. The Board also placed reliance on the notification dated 5-4-1966 issued by the Government of Gujarat, exercising powers under Sec. 51 of the Electricity act.
( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the additional District Magistrate, Baroda held in favour of the petitioner. He directed that the service line which was passing through the petitioners land should be removed at the cost of the Board and the service line may be provided by the Board for the purpose of supply of energy to Padra Ginning and Pressing Society on the government land. The Board was directed to complete the removal work within three months from the date of the order, like that, 13-12-1972. It was also directed that the Board should pay compensation of Rs. 125. 00 to the petitioner.
( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied with the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Baroda, the Board preferred a revision application before the State of Gujarat under Sec. 12 (4) of the Electricity Act. After hearing both the parties and examining the legal position, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Industries, Mines and Power department, allowed the revision application and quashed the order of the Additional district Magistrate. Therefore, the original applicant has come up before this Court challenging the said order of the Government passed on 20-6-1981, by filing this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
( 8 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has firstly contended that the impugned order passed by the Governmen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
