Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.N. Phukan, A. Pasayat, JJ.
SMT. SUSANIA PATEL - APPELLANT
Versus
GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 5821 of 1996
Decided On : 28-03-1998
{'KEYWORD': 'ELECTRICITY - TRANSMISSION LINE - COMPENSATION', 'SUBJECT': 'Compensation for damages caused by the construction of an electric transmission line.', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Section 28, 42', 'Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 - Section 10', 'Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Section 12, 18']}
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a plot of land and constructed a house near the residential office of the Collector. The opposite parties started construction of a 132 KV tower line for transmission of electric energy across the State Highway without obtaining necessary permission. The petitioner raised objections, but the construction continued. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the construction and for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the scheme for the construction of the transmission line was not properly published as it did not indicate the areas over which the line was likely to go. The court also held that the petitioner could not challenge the scheme after a long lapse of time and in the absence of any explanation for the delay. However, the court directed the opposite parties to complete the work and 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 under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Issues: 1. Whether the scheme for the construction of the transmission line was properly published? 2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the scheme after a long lapse of time and in the absence of any explanation for the delay? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the damages caused by the construction of the transmission line?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the scheme for the construction of the transmission line was not properly published as it did not indicate the areas over which the line was likely to go. The court relied on the provisions of Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which requires the publication of a scheme in the official gazette and in local newspapers. 2. The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the scheme after a long lapse of time and in the absence of any explanation for the delay. The court relied on the principle of laches, which prevents a person from seeking relief from a court after an unreasonable delay. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the damages caused by the construction of the transmission line. The court relied on the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which requires the telegraph authority to pay compensation for any damage caused by the exercise of its powers.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: 1. The opposite parties were directed to complete the work and take adequate measures for the safety of the petitioner's house and inmates. 2. The District Magistrate was directed to assess the compensation payable to the petitioner under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 within four months from the receipt of the judgment.
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 storied 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 Ardn. She raised objection, and it as 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 fee 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, Jharsuguda 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. Constitution, 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 al 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 K.V. 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 arc 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 differed; villages were cautioned not to construct any house below the overhead lone endang
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
