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

2023 Supreme(Gau) 760

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Saikia.
For the Respondents: N.C. Das, A. Das, M. Chetia.

Point of Law: 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 examination of evidence to establish right to enforce which writ is claimed.

Headnote:

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:

    2.1. The respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) is notified as a Central Transmission Utility under Section 38 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Ministry of Power, Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 had issued a Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2003 whereby the respondent PGCIL has been authorized to exercise all the powers under Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in respect of the electrical lines and electrical places established or maintained or to be so established or maintained for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the proper coordination of the works. The respondent M/s North East Transmission Company Limited is a joint venture of M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., M/s ONGC Tripura Power Company Limited (OTPCL), and, six states of the North East India and others. The respondent no. 7, M/s North East Transmission Company Limited in course of its business, was given the task of construction of a 400 KV Double Circuit Transmission Line from Pallatana (Tripura) to Bongaigaon (Assam) for evacuation of electric power from then ongoing 726 MW Gas Based Power Project of M/s ONGC Tripura Power Company Limited (OTPCL). The power project of M/s OTPCL to the North Eastern States includes : Pallatana - Charaibari - Silchar, Silchar - Khelerihat, Khelerihat - Byrnihat and Byrnihat Bongaigaon section of 400 KV Double Circuit Pallatana - Bongaigaon Transmission Line. The said transmission project was accorded approval by the Ministry of Power, Government of India under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. M/s North East Transmission Company Limited has also accorded transmission license by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the above transmission system. M/s PGCIL was in the task of supervising the construction works of the transmission system under consultancy agreement with M/s North East Transmission Company Limited. The project is of national importance to mitigate the power crisis in the north eastern region.

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

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top