Licensee companies must follow proper legal procedures, including compensating landowners for the unauthorized alteration of transmission line routes, while owners retain the right to seek fair compensation despite initial acceptance.

PATEL)

1.

All the captioned appeals constitute a group

inasmuch as they arise from common order passed by

learned Single Judge in the respective Special Civil

Applications. The other Special Civil Applications

forming part of these cognate matters have their

common subject matter and identical challenge, which

were ordered to be placed with the appeals and all the

matters were heard together. They since raise common

facts, contentions and issues, are being considered

simultaneously by this judgment.

Page 3 of 75

C/LPA/1104/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

1.1

It may be stated that all the captioned

petitions were ordered to be heard with Letters Patent

Appeal No. 300 of 2013 and that all matters are

principally at the same controversy and issues,

however since the facts involved in Letters Patent

Appeal No. 300 of 2013 were some more different, the

same is segregated from the captioned matters for the

purpose of judgment and the same is disposed of

separately.

2.

The appellants-petitioners are aggrieved by

the action on part of the respondents in laying down

high tension electric transmission lines for which the

towers were erected in the agricultural lands of the

appellants-petitioners. In that connection, the

prayers in the writ petitions were to set aside order

dated 04.06.2009 passed by Ministry of Power,

Government of India, and also to set aside public

notice dated 23.09.2008 published in the newspaper by

respondent No.1 company-Essar Power Transmission

Company Limited.

2.1

In so far as the Letters Patent Appeals are

concerned,

the

corresponding

Special

Civil

Applications came to be dismissed by learned Single

Judge by common order dated 26.07.2013 on two fold

grounds that all the petitioners had received

compensation, thereby acquiesced in respect of their

rights, which facts were not disclosed by them in

their petitions, and secondly that the challenge was

made by them belatedly after four years.

Page 4 of 75

C/LPA/1104/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

2.2

In order to ensure that petitioners could

urge every aspect of their case on merits, the court

permitted learned counsels appearing for them to raise

all the points they wanted to raise on merits from the

record.

2.3

This court heard learned senior counsel Mr.

Y. N. Oza with learned advocate Mr. Balram Jain,

learned advocate Mr. A. J. Yagnik for the respective

appellants-petitioners, learned senior counsel Mr.

Mihir Joshi for Nanavati Associates, advocate for

respondent No.1 and Mr.Parth Bhatt, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent No.6.

Facts

3.

Instead of burdening the judgment with the

facts of each case which are almost similar,

representative facts are taken from the record of

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1104 of 2013 relatable to

Special Civil Application No. 10284 of 2013. The

petitioner thereof, a farmer and the owner of land

bearing survey No. 361 admeasuring Hectares 5-46-00 of

the Village Aobha, Taluka Hansot, District Bharuch,

pleaded in his writ petition that the said land was

being cultivated by him and was only source of the

livelihood. It was his case that respondent No.1

company highhandedly entered into his land for the

purpose of erecting on the land the high tension

electric towers; despite his objections, the company

did not stop the work because of which the petitioner

had to approach this court. The details of each of the

Page 5 of 75

C/LPA/1104/2013 CAV JUDGMENT

appellant/s-petitioner/s and his/their respective

lands are tabularized hereinbelow,

Sl.

No.

Case No.

Name

of

the

petitioner/-

appellant

Survey

No(s)

belonging to the

appellant

(s)-

/petitioner(s