ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jaimin Gandhi for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Ishan Joshi for the respondent No.1-State and learned Advocate Mr.S.P. Hasurkar for the respondent No.2.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Joshi and learned Advocate Mr. Hasurkar waive service of Rule for the respective respondents.

3. With consent of the parties the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. The petitioners before this Court are owners and occupiers of lands situated in village Simej and village Roopgadh, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad. The respondent No.2 is a company engaged in construction and erection of 765 K.V. Lakadia – Vadodara transmission line having total length of 350 kms. starting from Lakadia (Bhuj) to Waghodia (Vadodara).

4.1 The petitioners have alleged that the transmission line being laid by the respondent No.2 is not properly aligned inasmuch as the alignment is not in a straight line as required in laying down of such line and whereas such alignment has been proposed to favour certain industrialists and other persons as referred to in the petition on account of which the petitioners are gravely prejudiced. Essentially in the petition the petitioners have challenged a notice dated 07.01.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 informing the recipients- petitioners about laying down transmission line and tower for such transmission line being required to be erected in the land of the petitioners and further informs the petitioners that the land is not being acquired and whereas agriculturists would be able to cultivate the land below the transmission line. The notice also informs about compensation to be payable for laying of the tower as well as for damage to the standing crops. The notice further informs that the recipients could approach the District Judge for enhancement of compensation.

Notice had been issued in the present petition in the month of February, 2021 and whereas this Court had deemed it appropriate to direct the respondent No.2 to maintain status-quo over the land in question. The respondent No.2 having filed the reply has denied the allegation of mala fide and further submitted that while deviation of 14.42 degree is envisaged in the route of the transmission line between the village Roopgadh and Simej and the same is to avoid the transmission line passing by populated areas etc. An affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners and to answer the queries of the Court and to clarify certain aspects a further affidavit-in- reply has been filed by the respondent No.2 and whereas the petitioners had been permitted to controvert the said further affidavit-in-reply by filing a written submissions, which is directed to be taken on record.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioners has submitted that from the map produced by the respondent No.2 with their affidavit-in-reply a clear deviation is seen which deviation as well as the entire alignment of the route from near village Roopgadh towards the west to village Simej in the east has been designed with a mala fide intent to facilitate a industrialist who is having a industry in the vicinity and which would have been affected if the alignment were in straight line. Learned Advocate has further submitted that the reason for change of the route as mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply of avoiding populated areas is an afterthought. Learned Advocate has further submitted that the transmission line does not take any deviation near village Koth which is an adjacent village and which is far more densely populated than the village Simej or Roopgadh. Learned Advocate has further submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No.2, more particularly at Page 96 wherein it is mentioned that whenever a deviation is necessary on account of any constraint after taking into consideration all technical aspects a report is submitted to the Chief Engineer Project who would approve the most convenient route. In this r