IN THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (Appellate Jurisdiction)

APPEAL No. 464 of 2024 Dated : 21^st February, 2025 Present: Hon’ble Mr. Sandesh Kumar Sharma, Technical Member Hon’ble Mr. Virender Bhat, Judicial Member In the matter of:

1. Shri Khanderao Thakaji Khaire S/o Late Shri Thakaji Khaire R/o Shrivade, Vani Taluka Nifad, District-Nashik – 423111 Email: dattakhaire0@gmail.com … Appellant No. 1

2. Dattatrya Khanderoa Khaire S/o Shri Khanderao Thakaji Khaire R/o Shrivade, Vani Taluka Nifad, District-Nashik – 423111 … Appellant No. 2 Versus

1. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Through, Executive Engineer, EHV (Construction/Project) Division, Block No. 8, MSETCL Building, Jail Road, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101 Email: cenasik@mahatransco.in … Respondent No. 1

2. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Registrar World Trade Centre, Centre No. 1, 13^th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005 Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in … Respondent No. 2 Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Ankit Shah Tarun Arora for App. 1 Ankit Shah Tarun Arora for App. 2 Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Shirish K Deshpande Apoorv Sharma Rucha Pravin Mandlik for Res. 1

J U D G M E N T

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The Appellant, a land owner in Taluka Nifad, District Nashik, Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the order dated 22^nd January, 2020 passed by 2^nd Respondent – Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”) whereby the Commission has set aside the order dated 1^st October, 2019 of the Collector, Nashik and has held the 1^st Respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (in short “MSETCL”) liable to pay Rs.53,340/- only to the Appellant towards compensation for the loss that has occurred to the grape trees on his land on account of erection of transmission line over the same by the MSETCL.

2. MSETCL has erected towers of 132 KV Pimplegaon – Dundri Transmission line in Nashik District as per Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 24^th August, 2006 and the transmission line passes over the concerned plot of land belonging to the Appellant. The transmission line was commissioned in the year 2013. Admittedly, no transmission pole has been erected by the 1^st Respondent on the Appellant’s plot of land and only overhead conductors passed across the land. It appears that on account of erection of the transmission line over the Appellant’s land in question, some damage was caused to the grape trees that had been grown on the land and accordingly the Appellant had sought compensation for the same.

3. Vide order dated 16^th December, 2015, the District Collector, Nashik awarded a compensation of Rs.17,51,374/- to the Appellant. MSETCL filed petition bearing No. 103 of 2016 before the Commission seeking revision of the collector’s order on the ground that the collector had awarded exorbitant compensation without prudence check. Meanwhile, the Appellant also had filed petition seeking revision of the collector’s same order on the ground that the compensation awarded was on lower side than the actual loss sustained by him. Vide common order dated 16.02.2028, the Commission dispose of both the petitions inter alia observing as under :-

“27. In fact, under the provisions of Section 67 of the EA, 2003 read with Rules 3 and 13 of the MEWLR quoted above, if the compensation is not mutually agreed and representation is made, the District Collector, Nashik (or other authorised officer) is to determine such compensation. However, the Commission notes that the impugned Order of the DM, Nashik is not a reasoned, speaking Order passed after giving both Parties an opportunity to be heard and considering their submissions and all the relevant material. As such, it is essentially administrative in nature and not an adjudicatory Order as is required by a quasi-judicial authority. In particular, he was expected to consider and reflect in his Order: i