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

2006 Supreme(MP) 619

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
ARUN MISHRA, J.
RAJENDRA PRASAD TIWARL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
W. P. 3941 Of 2006
Decided On : 05/04/2006

Advocates Appeared:
Aditya Adhikari, J.Pandit, Kumaresh Pathak, N.S.KALE

Compensation for the usage of agricultural lands for laying a transmission line can only be claimed after damage is caused, as per the provisions of the Telegraph Act.

Headnote:

Telegraph Act - Compensation for Transmission Line - Section 10, Section 16 - The court discussed the unfettered right of the telegraph authority to lay the transmission line and the requirement for compensation only if damage is caused. It highlighted the provisions of Section 10 and Section 16, emphasizing that compensation can only be claimed after the transmission line is taken through the field and damage is caused. The court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim stay, ordering the petitioner to pay costs to the State.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, seeking compensation for the usage of their agricultural lands for laying a transmission line by the Power Grid Corporation India Limited.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the unfettered right of the telegraph authority to lay the transmission line and the requirement for compensation only if damage is caused. It dismissed the petition, vacated the interim stay, and ordered the petitioner to pay costs to the State.

Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass the order, the right to claim compensation, and the authority empowered to order the exercise of powers under the Telegraph Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compensation can only be claimed after the transmission line is taken through the field and damage is caused, as per the provisions of Section 10 and Section 16 of the Telegraph Act.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs to the State.

( 1 ) IN this petition, petitioners have assailed an order (P/7) dt. 6-3-2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Prayer has also been made to grant compensation to petitioners for usage of their agricultural lands for taking transmission line over it.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS have submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is having total 1. 40 hectares of agricultural land adjoining to the road, Respondent No. 4; Power Grid Corporation India Limited has proposed 400 KV line over the field. As per the survey conducted by respondent No. 4, the power line was to be taken from the side of the field thereby causing minimum loss to the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 4 has modified the direction of the High Tension power line, thereby taking the line diagonally over the field so as to cross a cluster of newly built illegal houses. The officers of the respondent No. 4 are hand in glove with the owners of the houses and there is an unwritten sharing of 50% of compensation between them. The entire land of the petitioner No. 1 is liable to become un-useful due to the inherent dangers of HT line as apparent from map (P/2) which shows sanction map of the line. The Collector, Sidhi has issued a public notice (P/3) requiring the people to give co-operation. The respondent no. 4 has been notified under the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to exercise powers under the Telegraph Act as per the notification (P/4) dated 1st January, 2004. When the petitioner resisted, the respondent No. 4 filed a complaint (P/5) before the SDO. Reply (P/6) was submitted. Order (P/7) has been passed by the SDO on 6-3-2006 requiring the petitioners and others not to obstruct.

( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 2 is also having the total 35 acres of agricultural land 27 acres was used by the respondent No. 4 for running the high tension electric line without giving any compensation. There are already four High Tension lines, crossing over the fields of the petitioner. Now the respondent no. 4 is trying to construct a fifth HT line, as a result of which the entire land is under a mess of HT lines, thereby making it absolutely unarable due to the dangers of 400 kv line. Reply (P/9) to the notice was given to the SDO. Hence, the petition has been filed.

( 4 ) IT is submitted that the SDO has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Telegraph authority is duty bound to pass an order directing compensation under Section 10 (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The property of the petitioners have become unworkable due to high voltage line. Petitioners land is likely to become unuseful. The fields have become un-usable and are damaged permanently. The respondent No. 4 cannot use coercive method and cannot act on the strength of the order passed by the SDO. Respondent No. 4 is duty bound under the telegraph Act to compensate for the loss.

( 5 ) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 4 contending that the Power Grid corporation of India Limited is a Government of India undertaking, a Government company, under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also notified under section 38 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as the 'central Transmission Utility' of the country. It is the function of the respondent no. 4 to undertake transmission of electricity through inter-State Transmission Systems. Power Grid has planned to create a strong and vibrant National Power Grid in a phased manner to ensure optimum utilization of generating resources, conservation of eco-sensitive right of way and for having flexibility to accommodate uncertainty of generation plans. A perspective transmission plan has been evolved for strengthening the Regional Grid and to support the generating capacity addition programme of about 1,00,000 MW during Xth and XI plan. In accordance with the Tenth Plan ending 2007, the power generating capacity is to be added in Western Region under vindhyachal Super Power Project Stage III of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC ). The respondent No. 4










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