IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Sabitri Boro W/o Late Jotin Boro – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 6149 of 2012
Decided On : 22-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 38, 164 - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 10[d] and 16[3] - Alternative plot of residential land - Compensation - Electricity transmission line - Petitioner sought for a direction to respondent authorities to give an alternative plot of residential land after paying adequate compensation and to constitute an independent committee to verify plot of land of petitioner for purpose of qualifying/assessing loss/compensation payable to petitioner – Petitioner on one hand and respondent authorities on other hand have taken diametrically opposite stands as regards position of overhead electricity transmission line - Para 14.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner on one hand and respondent authorities on other hand have taken diametrically opposite stands as regards position of overhead electricity transmission line stringed in connection with Transmission project - Present one is such a case which would require determination of a disputed question of fact through both oral and documentary evidence with examination of witness of parties in a full-fledged trial and it might require a field enquiry and as such, writ proceedings is found to be not proper and appropriate proceedings to determine such disputed question of fact - Petition is found to be not maintainable.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging a letter dated 12.07.2012 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon and a letter dated 02.08.2012 of the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Limited. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to give an alternative plot of residential land after paying adequate compensation and to constitute an independent committee to verify the plot of land of the petitioner for the purpose of qualifying/assessing the loss/compensation payable to the petitioner.
2. The facts which are necessary for consideration of the issues raised in this writ petition can be narrated, in brief, is follows:
2.2. The petitioner was the wife of one Jatin Boro who was the only son of one Late Sadsing Kachari. It is not in dispute that Late Sadsing Kachari was the owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha, 3 Katha & 7 Lessas (1B-3K-7L), covered by Dag no. 706 and K.P. Patta no. 260 located at Village - Khena Allibari, Mouza - Dakhin Rani, Revenue Circle - Palashbari, District - Kamrup (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-plot’, at places, for easy reference). After the death of Late Sadsing Kachari, his son, Late Jatin Boro became the owner of the subject-plot and the name of Late Jatin Boro stood mutated in the revenue records. After the demise of Late Jatin Boro on 20.10.2002, the petitioner and her only son became the successors-in-interest of the subject-plot.
2.3. The subject-plot came under the purview of the Pallatana - Bongaigaon Transmission System project as the transmission line sought to be stringed was drawn over a part of the subject-plot. A notice dated 08.01.2011 came to be serv
High Court in its discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examinat....
Point of Law : while considering the words, 'other cause of like nature', to the effect that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide enough to cover such cases where defects are not merely jurisdict....
Point of Law : Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to ca....
Compensation under RFCTLARR Act is applicable only in cases of land acquisition, not for Right of Way, as clarified by the court.
Section 10(d) there are two mandatory requirements; (1) Telegraph Authority shall do as little damage as possible; and (2) to pay full compensation to all persons interested for the damage sustained ....
10(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other ....
No prior notice required for erecting transmission lines under Electricity Act; compensation is the only remedy for property owners.
The court affirmed that petitioners retain ownership of land despite a lapsed preliminary notification for reserve forest, entitling them to compensation under the Indian Telegraph and Electricity Ac....
The court's decision was influenced by the completion and functionality of the electric line, the failure of the villagers to substantiate their claims, and the analysis of the provisions of the Elec....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.