Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 13 (GAU)

Power Grid Corporation of India v. State of Assam

2010-01-08

HRISHIKESH ROY, RANJAN GOGOI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in the 3 writ appeals filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India ('Corporation'). The contesting landowners have been arrayed as private respondents in all the writ appeals and they are represented in court by Learned Counsels Mr. P.C. Barpujari, Mr. S.K. Kejriwal and Mr. D.K. Das respectively. 2. These case arise out of claims made by the landowners for enhancement of compensation for the damage caused in their lands by laying of 132 KVA High Tension (HT) lines by the appellant the Power Grid Corporation of India. The landowners not being satisfied with the compensation assessed by the Revenue Authority, applied for additional compensation by applying, inter alia, under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ("Telegraph Act"). 3. In case of landowner Md. Haidar Hussain Laskar respondent No. 3 in WA. 433 of 2006), additional compensation for Rs. 2,58,632 was allowed by the learned District Judge, Cachar by his order dated 6.11.2003. For landowner Azizur Rahman Laskar (respondent No. 3 in WA. 436 of 12006), the learned District Judge by his order dated 22.12.2000 approved additional compensation of Rs. 11,14,132. Insofar as the 3rd landowner Manipur Tea Estate (respondent, No. 3 in WA. 437 of 2006) is concerned, apart from additional compensation of Rs. 2,98,669 for damage to tea bushes, a further sum of Rs. 89.600 by way of solatium at the rate of 30% was also approved by the learned District Judge in his order dated 22.12.2000. 4. The Power Grid Corporation being aggrieved, challenged the orders of the learned District Judge by filing 3 separate petitions, i.e., WP(C) 331/04, WP(C) 1978/01 and WP(C) 1980/01 respectively. 5. By the common impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.2006, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that enhancement of compensation granted by the revenue authorities have been affirmed by the learned District Judge, by consideration of the relevant materials on record and there is no basis for interfering with the said enhancement ordered in favour of the land owners. 6. Arguing the writ appeals, Mr. 6. Arguing the writ appeals, Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, Learned Senior Counsel at the very outset makes it clear that the Power Grid Corporations does not challenge the enhanced compensation granted to the land owners in view of the recent decisions of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792 and Kerala State Electricity Board v. C.P. Siuasankara Menon (2008) 11 SCC 382 holding that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would not be foreign to a determination of compensation under the Telegraph Act. The above, appears to be the principal ground on which the enhanced compensation was challenged in the appeals. However, Learned Counsel submits that the revenue authorities and the learned District Judge were not justified in granting additional amount by way of solatium @ 30%, by applying Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act inasmuch as, there has been no acquisition of the lands. Mr. Ahmed submits that the provisions of Section 23(2) of L.A. Act cannot be applied and no solatium can be granted as there is no acquisition of the lands in this case and the ownership of the lands continue to vest on the landowners. 7. In view of the above submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant, as solatium is not an issue in WA. 433 of 2006 and WA. 436 of 2006 we need not deal with these 2 appeals as enhancement of compensation is conceded and is not challenged by the Power Grid Corporation. These 2 writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. 8. That takes us to writ appeal 437/06 where the learned District Judge by his order dated 22.12.2000 in Misc. Case No. 15/2000 has held that since Section 16(d) of the Telegraph Act is silent as to how compensation is to be assessed, invocation of Section 23 of the L.A. Act for awarding solatium is justified. 9. A look at the provisions of Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act ex facie indicates that the provisions thereof is applicable for granting solatium on the compensation payable for acquisition of land under the L.A. Act. Sub-section (2) of the Section 23 provides that the court shall in every such case, award 30% of the market value of the acquired land as solatium, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the land acquisition. 10. Sub-section (2) of the Section 23 provides that the court shall in every such case, award 30% of the market value of the acquired land as solatium, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the land acquisition. 10. While recourse to the principles under the L.A. Act for determining the amount of compensation payable for the land damages suffered by laying of High Tension Lines by the authorities may be justified, the provisions of the L.A. Act for payment of solatium cannot, in our view, have application in cases where no acquisition of land has taken place. In the instant case, ownership of the lands in question continue to vest on the Manipur Tea Estate and there is no change of ownership of the lands over which High Tension lines have been laid. 11. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge that payment of solatium under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act is justified for Manipur Tea Estate merely because the Telegraph Act is silent as to how compensation for damages to land to be assessed. 12. In view of the above discussion, we partially allow WA 437 of 2006 by declaring that solatium under Section 23(2) of the, L.A. Act could not have been granted to Manipur Tea Estate and accordingly we hold that the landowner is not entitled to any solatium on the assessed compensation. However, they are entitled to the additional compensation for damage as granted under the provisions of Telegraph Act. 13. Insofar cross appeal 2 of 2007 filed by Manipur Tea Estate which is pressed for a claim of interest on the compensation, we find that the landowner did not claim interest at any earlier stage. They did not challenge the orders of the revenue authorities or the learned District Judge where no interest was granted. Now through a cross appeal in the writ proceeding initiated by the Power Grid Corporation, they, for the first time have put up a claim for interest. Considered in this backdrop, we find no reason to entertain this cross appeal of one of the landowners and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. All the appeals are disposed of in light of above without any order on cost. Appeal dismissed