Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 68 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Sahu v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-08

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the respondent to stop establishing of Telegraph posts (Electricity) on the land of the petitioner since the same has been installed without any prior notice. 2. The grievance of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that he is title-holder of land pertaining to Mouza Lowadih, Thara Ranchi, Holding no. 12, Khewat No. 9, Khata No. 12, Plot No. 958 and 959 which in totality makes an area of 1.66 acres wherein respondent-authorities have established a tower for transmission of electricity line, therefore, the petitioner has moved to this Court to questioning the action of the respondent since tower over the land of the petitioner has been established without seeking any prior. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is living since long over the land in question and as such it was incumbent upon the part of the respondent-authorities to seek permission or at least take prior permission to establish tower over the head of 33 KV line, for transmission of electricity line. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-authority wherein stand has been taken that no tower has been constructed over the land of the petitioner however it is admitted case of the respondent-authority that the tower has been constructed upon the adjacent land of the petitioner for crossing the 33 KV line for the purpose of transmission of electricity. It has been stated by referring to the provision of Sections 10, 16 and 64 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as also the provision of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2013 whereby and whereunder the government has issued a notification to exercise the power conferred to the authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to place and maintain telegraphs line and posts and thereafter tower has been constructed and as such there is no illegality in the same. It has further been urged that the issue has been decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the Case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors. It has further been urged that the issue has been decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the Case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors. reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143 whereby and whereunder it has been held that in the case of constructing of the tower over 33 KV Line, there will no acquisition of the land rather the only users right is being taken by the transmission company and as such the title holder will be entitled to get the compensation to be adjudicated by the District Judge of the concerned District and, therefore, it has been submitted that at best the case of the petitioner is to get proper compensation for which he is to approach before the concerned District Judge for proper compensation. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, it is evident that the writ petition has been filed questioning the authority of the transmission company installing 33 KV Line by constructing tower over the land of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that tower has been constructed over his land but the stand of the transmission company is that tower has not been constructed over the land in question. However, High Voltage line is going across. Before going into the legality and propriety of the order it needs to refer the provision as contained under Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, which is being referred here under as :- "Exercise of powers of Telegraph Authority in certain cases.-The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, such to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), any of the powers which the telegraph authority possesses under that Act with respect to the placing of telegraph lines and posts for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained, by the Government or to be so established or maintained. 6. 6. It also needs to refer the provision of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, which provides provision for the appropriate Government to issue notification conferring power upon the authority of the electricity Board to exercise the power conferred to the Telegraph authority under the Provision of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 7. In view of the such provision there is no dispute that the land is to be taken but not its title rather the only users right taken to the Transmission Company for that the compensation is required to be paid to be determined by the concerned District Judge of the concerned District. The same issue failed for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors. (supra) wherein at Paragraph-25. 8. In view of the provisions of the statute as referred hereinabove and the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors. (supra) particularly the petitioners claim for removal of the tower said to be installed in his land, is not worth to be considered. However the grievance related to the petitioner for compensation if permissible, is fit to be adjudicated. Therefore applying the principle laid down in the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (supra) this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the concerned District Judge for the adjudication of the claim of compensation which shall be considered by the concerned District Judge after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law. 9. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.