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

1998 Supreme(Ori) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.N. Phukan, A. Pasayat, JJ.
SMT. SUSAMA PATEL - APPELLANT
Versus
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 5821 of 1996
Decided On : 23-03-1998

Advocates Appeared:
H.S. Misra, for the Appellant; B.K. Nayak and J.K. Khuntia, for the Respondent

A scheme for the construction of a transmission line must be properly published as required by law, and a person whose property is affected by the construction of the line is entitled to compensation.

Headnote:

ELECTRICITY - TRANSMISSION LINE - SCHEME - PUBLICATION - COMPENSATION - INDIAN ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910 - SECTIONS 12, 18 - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 28, 42 - INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885 - SECTION 10 - SCHEME NOT PROPERLY PUBLISHED - NO OBJECTION RAISED BY PETITIONER OR VENDOR - PETITIONER ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION - DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TO ASSESS COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the construction of a 132 KV Tower line for transmission of electric energy near her house, alleging that necessary permission was not taken, the line was constructed illegally, and her consent was not obtained. The opposite parties contended that the scheme was duly notified and approved, and the petitioner's land was vacant at the time of construction.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the scheme was not properly published as it did not indicate the areas over which the transmission line was likely to go. However, the Court also noted that no objection was raised by the petitioner or her vendor at the relevant time, and that nearly 90% of the work had been completed.

Issues: 1. Whether the scheme was properly published as required by law? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the construction of the transmission line?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the scheme was not properly published as it did not indicate the areas over which the transmission line was likely to go. However, the Court also noted that no objection was raised by the petitioner or her vendor at the relevant time, and that nearly 90% of the work had been completed. 2. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the construction of the transmission line, and directed the District Magistrate to assess the compensation within four months.

Final Decision: The Court directed the opposite parties to complete the work, but to take adequate measures for the safety of the petitioner's house and inmates. The Court also directed the District Magistrate to assess the compensation payable to the petitioner within four months.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Phukan, C.J. - The background facts, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows :

The petitioner purchased a plot of land in the year 1993 near the residential office of the Collector, Jharsuguda on the State Highway and after approval of plan and after obtaining proper permission from the Sambalpur Regional Improvement Trust, she constructed a double storeyed house. When the house was under construction, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the opposite parties started construction of 132 KV Tower line for transmission of electric energy from Brajarajnagar across the State Highway to Cement Factory of L & T situated at Arda. She raised objection, and it was found that necessary permission as required under law was not taken. Construction was stopped for some time. Thereafter, all on a sudden, construction of the tower started. Line from Kantapalli to the cement factory in one side of the tower was taken. The said line is not going directly over the house of the petitioner, but crossing through the State Highway. Though the petitioner raised protest again, the opposite parties did not care to listen. As the electric line is going to be constructed by the side of the house of the petitioner about 10 feet away, there is apprehension in her mind that in case of accident, her house may be affected. As the wires will go directly over the house of the petitioner, there will be danger to the life of the occupants of the house. Her consent in the matter was not taken. According to her, permission was not taken from the District Magistrate, Jharsusugda, and, therefore, electric line was drawn illegally and the action is arbitrary and violative of the rights of the petitioner. She is making this statement as show-cause notice was not served on her. She has further alleged that no compensation was paid to her for this high tension electric line over her house, which, according to her, is contrary to law. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to stop further construction of the 132 KV Tower line over her house and also the residential house of the Collector. In the alternative, she has prayed that the tower line may be shifted to some other place. She has also prayed for grant of compensation in accordance with law for drawing the transmission line by the side of her house.

2. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2, namely. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., and Executive Engineer, E.H.T. Construction, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Jharsuguda, it has been pleaded that decision was taken in the year 1992 and scheme was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer, Transmission Project for an estimate of Rs. 3,99,15,430/-. After the scheme was sanctioned, it was duly notified in the extraordinary Gazette in the year 1993 as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for short, 'Act of 1948') for information and submission of representation or objection, if any, to the construction of the said line. A copy of the notification was also published in the Oriya daily 'Samaj' dated 6.3.93. The Gazette notification and the newspaper publication are at Annexures A/2 and B/2 respectively. When no objection was received from any quarter after publication of the scheme, the work of the 132 KV Single Circuit Line on Double Circuit tower with a length of 18.5 K.M. was undertaken and the same was completed in September, 1993. It was duly inspected by the Chief Electrical Inspector of the State Government. No irregularities have been pointed out by them with regard to the supply line. When the overhead line was completed, there was no residential premises below the same. All the lands are either fallow or agricultural lands. Before charging the line, it was notified to the public that with effect from 15.8.1993 power line would be charged and residents of different villages were cautioned not to construct any house below the overhead line e





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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