Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir had been commenced by the petitioners, who happened to be the owners in respect of the land aggregating 18 kanals 18 marlas across which the Power Development Department of the State, respondent-2, is said to be laying overhead lines for transmission of electrical energy and putting up towers for support of those lines. By the writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from spreading the 220 KV transmission lines including construction of any steel tower over and in the land of the petitioners situated in village Omara, Tehsil and District Udhampur, and further directing the respondents to align the transmission lines in such a manner that the same are laid over the adjacent available Government land without involving the land of the petitioners. The writ petition, however, came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his judgment and order dated 04-09-2001 and its correctness came to be impugned in LPA (W) No. 131/2001 by the appellants/petitioners. Honble Judges composing the Bench differed in their view and the Lord Chief Justice under Rule 36 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1997 designated another Judge to hear on the point on which the Judges differed in their view. This is how the matter came to be heard by this Court. The facts of the case, in brief, may be stated as follows.

2. In pursuance of a Scheme, respondent-2, Power Development Department of Jammu and Kashmir Government formulated a project report for laying transmission lines 220 KV S/C Gladni, Udhampur and after securing an administrative approval to the project subsequent to its clearance by the Techno-Economic Committee vide order No. 27-PDD of 1996 dated 19-01-1996, a survey was conducted for the execution of the Scheme to be purely for public purpose. On the approval of the plan, the land of the petitioners was to be utilized for the laying of the transmission lines. After crossing the Army area, transmission lines had to cross over the land of the petitioners/appellants for completing the connection with Tower No. 113 of the transmission lines. That in between Tower No. 112 and Tower No. 113 was located the land in occupation of the appellants/petitioners. Transmission lines were to cross through the land of the appellants/petitioners for completion, which, according to them, was likely to reduce its utility and could not be used for agriculture purposes as it had been used earlier, besides its availability for residential use. According to the appellants/petitioners, the proposed spreading/laying of the transmission lines is passing through the middle of their land and will render the entire piece of land unusable being reduced in its utility either for agriculture purpose or for residential use. The appellants/petitioners approached the respondents with a representation in urging for re-alignment, as the Department has already done in deviating from the original alignment and the overhead transmission lines be laid on one side of the land so that minimum land of the appellants is utilized and minimum damage is caused while installing the proposed Tower in re-alignment.

3. The stand taken by the respondents in their return is that respondents are within their rights to install the Towers in accordance with the original project report based on a sanctioned Scheme and the petitioners/appellants are only entitled to compensation as per the Electricity Act for the land, which is likely to be used for erecting Transmission Towers. That the respondents cannot be prevented from doing an act, which is recognized by a statute. The act of the respondents in laying the transmission lines to provide electricity and undisturbed power supply is in the larger interest of the public. Further plea of the respondents is that so long as the work is done by the respondents, viz., Power De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document