2020 Supreme(Guj) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Somji Karamsinh Patel - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kutchh - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 6785 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2020

Point of Law:
when Court read sections 67 & 68 of the Electricity Act together with the provisions of the Telegraph Act, namely, Section 10 & section 6 of the Telegraph Act it suggests that the requisite permissions need to be obtained reading the two Acts together – Section 16(3) categorically states that even if a dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause(d), the parties have to approach the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Article 12 – Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 – Rule 3 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 67 & 68 – Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – Sections 10, 16 – Installation of Electric Poles – Decline of Permission – Compensation of – Prayers in petition, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, permanently restraining respondents from installing electric poles and laying high tension transmission lines from land and be further pleased to direct respondents to remove part construction of electric poles already installed over the said agricultural land – In alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents to erect the electricity poles and high tension transmission lines from nearby Kharaba land of government and to follow principles of "least damage" and to pay appropriate compensation before entering into and installing high tension transmission line, if at all it is required.

Facts of the Case:

It is case of petitioners that they are owners of land – Case of petitioners is that they are cultivating land by engaging agricultural labourers and agricultural activity is ongoing – Case of petitioners is that one K.P.Energy Pvt Ltd., which is in business of erecting towers and supplying electricity power, has installed several wind mills at Village and is transmitting electricity power by laying high tension electricity lines – Company has not taken any permission from District Magistrate and also not obtained any consent from owners of respective agricultural fields – Company is threatening agriculturists to accept compensation at their discretion – Case of petitioners is that, when respondent No.2 tried to forcibly enter land of petitioners and they were sought to be restrained, they were threatened and therefore, they made complaint to Nakhatrana Police Station – Petitioners have made representations to District Collector that lands of petitioners cannot be entered upon without their consent – Statement is also made in petition that, earlier when one Suzlon Power Infrastructure Ltd., installed high tension transmission lines from revenue company paid a compensation – Petitioners have, therefore, approached this court and the prayers therefore have been reproduced herein above.

Findings of Court:

Mechanism is set out in sub-section (4) of section 16 – It is, amply clear that a writ petition for enhancement of compensation would not be a remedy available to petitioners when a mechanism is well available under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act – To bald assertions made by petitioners in petition, sufficient material has been placed in affidavit-in-reply showing that requisite permission under section 68 of Electricity Act read with section 164 and that of section 10 and 16 of Telegraph Act have been obtained by respondent No.2 – Meetings and minutes thereof under section 16 of Telegraph Act would show that authorities attempted to assuage farmers' grievance as to compensation amount for obtaining consent for entering into their lands which was resisted – It was only after following procedures as envisaged under provisions of Act that respondents have sought to install transmission lines in accordance with law, and therefore, if petitioners are aggrieved by amount of compensation that is being paid, remedy lies elsewhere as suggested in Section 16 of Telegraph Act and the petition, therefore, is misconceived.

Result: Petition Dismissed