Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1374 (ALL)

Ved Prakash v. State of U. P.

2021-11-18

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, RAJESH BINDAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : [Piyush Agrawal, J.] 1. By means of the instant Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for following, amongst other, relief : ''I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 not to raise the construction of line tower for running the electricity wire in Village Bhamai Husamganj, Post Deewanganj, District Prayagraj between the abadi side and further restrained respondents not to raise any construction from the land of the land owners without complying the provisions provided under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.'' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited, i.e., the respondent No. 3, is laying high tension memorandum wire between the abadi side of the village, for which various electricity supply towers are being constructed. He further submits that area from where the high tension memorandum wire is going to be laid, there exists schools, agricultural fields and village abadi. Therefore, the same may not be allowed to be laid. In other words, he wants that the said high tension line may be diverted or the alignment may be altered so that the abadi area, schools, agricultural fields, etc. may be unaffected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted as the alignment of the high tension line cannot be changed to benefit some of the petitioners as alignment is not decided by any individual; rather, the same is a result of collective efforts of experts. He further submits that it is a prestigious project for the State to transmit power and the entire exercise has been done after due approval from the competent authorities. Before planning to erect the transmission line, not only the topography of the area, but even the soil is also tested to ensure that the same can sustain the load. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Corporation got permission to lay high tension transmission line. The lines are to be drawn, which pass through the land of Village - Bhamai Husamganj, Post - Deewanganj, District - Prayagraj. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Corporation got permission to lay high tension transmission line. The lines are to be drawn, which pass through the land of Village - Bhamai Husamganj, Post - Deewanganj, District - Prayagraj. The plea raised in the petition is that alignment of the Transmission Line be changed so that the schools, agricultural fields, abadi, etc. are saved. The Transmission Line is proposed in a straight line passing through the land of the village in question, change of alignment of which may not be possible, considering the fact that it is the job of the experts as to which route is to be adopted for erection of high power Transmission Lines. The petitioners have not challenged any notification, which empowers the respondents to lay the transmission line, as the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') empowers the State to issue notification mentioning details of the area through which transmission line will pass through. 6. Section 10 of the Act authorizes the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable property. Proviso (b) to Section 10 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that while erecting lines, the authority does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property, which is subject to payment of compensation. Further argument of the counsel for the petitioners that neither any information nor opportunity was granted to file objection before approval/notification notifying the laying of the power transmission line so that a detailed objection could be filed requesting beneath the alignment, there are schools, agricultural fields, abadi, etc. is totally misconceived. 7. As has been observed in a judgment by the Division bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Vivek Brajendra Singh v. State of Government of Maharashtra and others, 2012 (4) BCR 116, there is no hearing contemplated against laying of lines. A decision to mark route for laying electric line is a highly specialized and technical. 7. As has been observed in a judgment by the Division bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Vivek Brajendra Singh v. State of Government of Maharashtra and others, 2012 (4) BCR 116, there is no hearing contemplated against laying of lines. A decision to mark route for laying electric line is a highly specialized and technical. The route may be running into hundreds of kilometers passing through land owned by different owners and it may not be possible to offer hearing to all the owners, as only right to use small-small of portions of land on which towers or occupiers of the land on the route to suggest alternates. If that process is adopted, the project will never be completed as any such decision would be subject to judicial review and the State or its functionaries may not be able to provide infrastructure. Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.V.S. Rama Krishna and others v. A.P. Transco and others, AIR 2009 AP 158 , clearly laid down that the only right available to landowners is to receive compensation and damages, if any, sustained by them, as neither there is acquisition of land nor there is any need of consent of the owners or occupiers. Even in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles & Industries Limited and others, AIR 2017 SC 1141 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court had not interfered in the process of laying of power lines. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has time and again opined that projects of public importance should not be halted as the same would be against the larger public interest and the constitutional Courts should weigh public interest vis-à-vis private interest while exercising its discretion. 9. In Gulam Ahmad Bhat v. Union of India and others (OWP No. 1950 of 2018, dated 20.12.2018), the Jammu & Kashmir High Court at Srinagar, while holding that transmission of line and alignment cannot be changed at the behest of some of the petitioners, has observed as under : ''11. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Corporation got permission to lay 220 KV D/C Kishenganga to T-point at Amargarh and 220 KV D/C Amargarh (Sopore) and from Amargarh (Sopore) to Wagoora (Budgam) under the Scheme known as Transmission System Associated with Kishenganga HEP for transmission of power from the upcoming 330 MW HEP of NHPC. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Corporation got permission to lay 220 KV D/C Kishenganga to T-point at Amargarh and 220 KV D/C Amargarh (Sopore) and from Amargarh (Sopore) to Wagoora (Budgam) under the Scheme known as Transmission System Associated with Kishenganga HEP for transmission of power from the upcoming 330 MW HEP of NHPC. As stated by the learned counsel for the Corporation, entire work is over. Only the lines are to be drawn to connect Tower No. 40/6 and 41/0, which pass through the land owned by the petitioner. Beneath the alignment, there is a constructed house of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that it was constructed before issuance of notification dated 18.06.2015 proposing erection of Transmission Line whereas the stand of the Corporation is that house was constructed after the notification had already been issued. Section 10 of the Act authorizes the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable property. Proviso (b) to Section 10 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that while erecting lines, the authority does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property, which is subject to payment of compensation. In the case in hand as well, notification dated 18.06.2015 has been issued for laying transmission line on the route as mentioned herein. The plea raised in the writ petition is that alignment of the Transmission Line be changed so that the house of the petitioner is saved. There is a site plan produced on record by the petitioner himself which shows that the Transmission Line is proposed in a straight line passing through the land of the petitioner. Change of alignment of which may not be possible at this stage, considering the fact that Towers on both sides have been erected and further it is the job of the experts especially in hilly terrains as to which route is to be adopted for erection of high power Transmission Lines. 12. Section 10 of the Act authorizes the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable property. 12. Section 10 of the Act authorizes the authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable property. Proviso (b) to Section 10 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that while erecting lines, the authority does not acquire any right other than that of user in the property, which is subject to payment of compensation. In the case in hand as well, notification dated 18.06.2015 has been issued for laying transmission line on the route as mentioned herein. 13. As has been observed in a judgment by the Division bench of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Vivek Brajendra Singh v. State of Government of Maharashtra and others, 2012 (4) BCR 116, there is no hearing contemplated against laying of lines. A decision to mark route for laying electric line is a highly specialized and technical. The route may be running into hundreds of kilometers passing through land owned by different owners and it may not be possible to offer hearing to all the owners, as only right to use small-small of portions of land on which towers or occupiers of the land on the route to suggest alternates. If that process is adopted, the project will never be completed as any such decision would be subject to judicial review and the State or its functionaries may not be able to provide infrastructure. Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.V.S. Rama Krishna and others v. A.P. Transco and others, AIR 2009 AP 158 , clearly laid down that the only right available to landowners is to receive compensation and damages, if any, sustained by them, as neither there is acquisition of land nor there is any need of consent of the owners or occupiers. Even in Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles & Industries Limited and others, AIR 2017 SC 1141 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court had not interfered in the process of laying of power lines. 14. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion the application filed by the Corporation deserves to be allowed. The application is, accordingly, allowed. The interim stay granted on 15.10.2018 is vacated. 10. For the reasons stated above and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in our opinion, the present PIL is devoid of merit. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.