2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 5915
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MUNNURI LAXMAN
NATHU RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 4474 / 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:9299]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4474/2025 Nathu Ram S/o Shera Ram, Aged About 85 Years, R/o Anwaliyasar, Tehsil Deh, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Energy, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Nagaur.
3. The Tehsildar, Deh, District Nagaur.
4. Sterlite Power Transmission Limited, Through Its Project Manager Office At House No. 12, Roop Nagar, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
5. The Powergrid Bhadla, Sikar Transmission Limited, Through Its Authorised Officer, At V-Type Quarter, Bsnl, Manasar, Manasar Choraha, Nagaur (Raj.).
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma Mr. Mrinal Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet R. Dave HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
14/02/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(i) The respondents may kindly be restrained to raise any transmission tower or line from/over the land of the petitioner until the acquisition is not made under a valid notification or the process of law, the respondent may also directed for determine the compensation against the use of land under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act 2013;
(ii) The respondents may restrict to interference in the right of the petitioner over the land in question as mentioned in Annexure-1 of the writ petition;
(iii) The respondents may kindly be prohibited to construct the transmission tower/line upon the land of the petitioners without passing any order/award of the compensation by the competent authority for use of the land; and (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner claims to be the owner/lawful possessor of the land comprising in Khata No.110, Khasra No.323/36 admeasuring 1.6026 hectare situated in village Bagrasar, District Nagaour. Without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the respondents have proceeded to utilize the land of the petitioner for laying of towers and transmission lines of 765 KV. The grievance of the petitioner is that without paying damages, the authorities cannot enter into possession of the property for any kind of activities either for laying towers or overhead lines. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Mr. Vineet R. Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Company has submitted that respondent Company is only conducting a survey for erecting towers and transmission lines. According to him, before the towers and overhead lines are laid, a survey will be conducted by the revenue authorities on the affected area of the land. A report was submitted by the revenue authorities to the District Collector and by virtue of the said report the District Collector was having knowledge of the process of installation of towers and overhead lines.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Company further submits that under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Government is empowered by notification to allow all the powers which are available under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and in pursuance of such confirming of power, the respondents are proceeding to install the tower in the alignment fixed by them. According to him, the payment of damages will be determined by the competent authorities under the Act after the land has been utilized for laying of the towers and overhead lines. It is also his submission that the present writ petition is premature.
5. It is not in dispute that the alignment is passing through the land which the petitioner claims to be the owner. It is also not in dispute that the survey was also conducted except implementation of the proposed line which is under process. It is also not in dispute that the proposed line was 765 KV line and the guidelines is