SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Guj) 976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. Desai, J.
Narbheshankarbhai Arjanbhai Teraiya and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 9295 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bhargav K. Mehta and Kalrav R. Patel
For the Respondents: S.P. Hasurkar and Trupesh Kathirya

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority's decision under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, to install electric towers on agricultural lands must consider minimizing damage to the lands and practical constraints, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition.

Headnote:

Electric Towers - Agricultural Lands - Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, Section 16(1) - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, specifically Section 16(1), and the guidelines issued by the authorities regarding the installation of electric towers on agricultural lands. The court highlighted the authority's consideration of minimizing damage to farmers' lands and the necessity to install towers in a manner that aligns with the geographical layout of the area.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, agriculturists with agricultural lands, challenged the installation of electric towers in their fields and the order of the Collector and District Magistrate rejecting their objections under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent had taken utmost care to minimize damage to farmers' lands and had proposed to install electric towers on the border of each survey number, except for one land due to its geographical layout and the presence of a railway line.

Issues: The issues involved the consideration of the guidelines for installing electric towers on agricultural lands and the authority's decision to reject the objections raised by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority's decision to reject the objections was justified as it had taken measures to minimize damage to the farmers' lands and had considered the geographical layout and practical constraints in installing the electric towers.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the Collector and District Magistrate to reject the objections raised by the petitioners.

ORDER :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Articles 14, 16, 18, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are agriculturists and having agricultural lands at village Badel - Pipariya, Tal. Babra, Dist. Amreli have challenged the action on the part of the respondent No. 4 of installing electric towers in their agricultural fields as well as also challenged the order dated 29.7.2020 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Amreli in Case No. Nachi/EA/Case/Regi. No. 05/2020 by which the learned Collector and District Magistrate, Amreli while exercising his power under the provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners.

2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent No. 4 has appeared through learned advocate Mr. S.P. Hasurkar and filed affidavit-in-reply dated 13.8.2020 and copy thereof is served to learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. There is no rejoinder filed by the petitioners.

3. The short facts arise from the record are that the respondent No. 4 intended to erect 66 KV Sub-Station between Lunidhar Substation to M/s. Vena Energy Shivkink Wind Power Private Limited and hence, a map was prepared to erect certain electric towers on different agricultural lands. When the question arose about installation of such towers on the lands belonging to the petitioners, objections were raised by the petitioners before the Collector and District Magistrate, Amreli who is an Authorized Officer under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 read with Indian Telegraph Act, 1985. The Collector and District Magistrate, Amreli by his order dated 29.7.2020 dismissed the objections of the petitioners. Hence this petition.

4. Mr. Kalrav R. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent authority has not considered the guidelines issued by the authorities with regard to installation of such towers to see that the agricultural fields of the farmers are not disturbed and, therefore, the electric towers should be erected in such a manner i.e. from the border of the agricultural fields so that the farmers can do agricultural activities without any difficulty. He would further submit that the respondent No. 4 is trying to install the electric towers in such a manner which would create difficulty to them in using the agricultural lands for agricultural activities. By taking me through the map produced by the petitioners at page 16 of the petition, he would submit that one electric tower is installed in the middle of Survey No. 212 which would create great difficulty for the farmer and, therefore, the authority may be directed to install the electric tower in such a manner that the same may not create hindrance in carrying out the agricultural activities. He would submit that this aspect has not been properly dealt with by the Collector and District Magistrate, Amreli and hence, the present petition may be allowed and appropriate directions may be issued.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4 - GETCO has taken me through the affidavit-in-reply dated 13.8.2020 and would submit that utmost care has been taken to see that the electric towers are erected on the border of each of the agricultural field. He would further submit that respondent No. 4 has prepared a map for installation of the electric towers which suggests that minimum damage is caused to the farmers and without any difficulty, they can carry out the day to day agricultural activities. He has also taken me through Annexure R-I (Page 47) which is a map and would submit that except Survey No. 212 which belonged to petitioner No. 2, in all the other lands of the petitioners, electric towers are proposed to be erected on the border of each Survey Numbers. He would further submit that Survey No. 212 is of such a shape and huge in area. However, only one

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top