Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 365 (GAU)

Lalthuama Sailo v. State Of Mizoram

2022-04-05

S.SERTO

body2022
JUDGMENT : (S. Serto, J.) : – 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C)/99/2019, Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/151/2019, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents in both the Writ Petitions and Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent in both the Writ Petitions. 2. The claim of the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions- the three petitioners in WP(C)/99/2019, and the four petitioners in the other Writ Petition, i.e., WP(C)/151/2019- is that, though the respondents had erected/constructed transmission towers of 132 KV Single Circuit Transmission Lines in their lands situated at Kawnpui and Khamrang (in WP(C)/99/2019), and Thlanmual Veng, Thingdawl, Melveng Lui Ram, Thingdawl, Parvalui Ruam, Thingdawl and Berawlui Ram, Thing-dawl (in WP(C)/151/2019), no compensation as per law applicable in the State has ever been awarded to them. It has been submitted by both the learned counsels of the petitioners in the Writ Petitions that, as per sec. 67(2)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, whenever towers are constructed for electricity power lines, appropriate Authority as per the applicable law has to determine the compensation or rent payable to the persons affected by such project works, but the petitioners have never been paid any compensation for their respective lands on which the towers have been constructed for the 132 KV Single Circuit Transmission Line. The learned counsel has also submitted that though no rule has been framed by the State Government under the Electricity Act, Guidelines framed by the Central Government which provides for determining the compensation towards damages as stipulated in sec. 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Sec. 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has been adopted. And as per the guidelines, the persons whose lands are affected by such works are entitled to adequate compensation, which is 100% of the land value as given in Notification No. D.11028/8/2017-P&E dtd. 1/5/2019, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Power and Electricity Department. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for their land values on which the transmission towers have been constructed. 3. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that though the Notification dtd. 1/5/2019, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Power and Electricity Department. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for their land values on which the transmission towers have been constructed. 3. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that though the Notification dtd. 21/1/2010 was issued before the construction of the towers for putting up of the 132 KV Single Circuit Transmission Line, none of the petitioners made their claim, therefore, it is too late in the day for them to make their claims. The learned Government Advocate, by referring to Clause 3.0(v) of the General Conditions of the Contract signed between the Contractor and the Power and Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram also submitted that as per the Contract Agreement, Right of Way of the Transmission line is the responsibility of the Contractor. Therefore, even if compensation is to be paid it is the Contractor who is responsible to pay the same. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the private respondent by referring to Clause 2.7 of the Contract Agreement submitted that as per this Clause, 'owner' means the Power and Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram, therefore, it is the responsibility of the State Government to pay the compensation for the lands of the petitioners where the towers have been constructed. 5. In reply to the submissions of both the learned counsels of the respondents, the learned counsels of the petitioners submitted that though the Notification dtd. 21/1/2010 might have been issued it was never published widely for the land-owners to know the contents of the same. They also submitted that the respondents have not annexed copies of the newspaper in support of their submission that their Notification was published in the local papers, therefore, the claim that it was widely published is without any basis whatsoever. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and also taken into view the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions including the laws applicable. There is no dispute on the claim of the petitioners that, on their respective lands, one tower each for the 132 KV Single Circuit Transmission Lines have been constructed by the respondents. And there is also no dispute to their claim that they are entitled to compensation as per the law applicable. There is no dispute on the claim of the petitioners that, on their respective lands, one tower each for the 132 KV Single Circuit Transmission Lines have been constructed by the respondents. And there is also no dispute to their claim that they are entitled to compensation as per the law applicable. Therefore, there are only two issues which require to be considered; one of them is whether the petitioners who have kept quiet for a long time and did not claim any compensation when the notice for construction of towers on their lands were issued are still legally entitled to make such claims or not. The second issue is, who among the respondents would be responsible for giving the compensation. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners no copies of the newspapers, in which the respondents claim to have widely published the Notification dt. 21/1/2010, have been placed before this Court. In the absence of copies of the newspapers, it can only be concluded that the said Notification, though it might have been issued, was never widely published. Even assuming that the Notification was widely published and the petitioners were aware of the same, that would not disqualify them from getting the compensation for their lands; because right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, is a constitutional right, and therefore, if one is to be deprived of his property/land, due compensation must be paid as prescribed by law made applicable. It is especially so in this case, because, the land of the petitioners are utilized by none other than the State Government for public purpose. The State and the Government exists for the welfare of its citizens, therefore, they cannot deprive anybody of his or her property without paying compensation. In our constitutional scheme of things no one can be deprived of his property save by authority of law as provided under Article 300A of the Constitution. Further, right to property is interlinked with right to life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to life would be meaningless without any safeguard to one's right to property. The phrase 'Right to life' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted as life with dignity and not mere existence. Further, right to property is interlinked with right to life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to life would be meaningless without any safeguard to one's right to property. The phrase 'Right to life' enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted as life with dignity and not mere existence. If one were to be deprived of his/her property without being paid due compensation it would lead to deprivation of livelihood and a life with dignity. Therefore, as stated above, the State cannot deprive a person of his property without paying compensation irrespective of the delay in making the claim. On the flipside, it is also the duty of the State Government to pay what is due to the land- owners. As such, people who are in-charge in the Government should have made it sure that everyone whose lands are affected were informed of their rights and paid what is due to them. Having not done so, they cannot, now, take advantage of the ignorance of the petitioners, which is, but due to the lacuna in the performance of their duty. On the second issue, i.e., as to who would be responsible or liable to pay the compensation, it has been submitted by both the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that the issue can be determined by an arbitrator as per the Arbitration Clause given in the Contract Agreement. It is a fact that there is Arbitration Clause in the Contract Agreement, therefore, I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsels. Besides, I am also of the view that, this matter is something that has to be decided between the two respondents. For non-determination of the issue between the respondents, it would be unfair to make the petitioners run from pillar to post or wait indefinitely while their lands have been already utilized for public purpose for the last ten years. Therefore, I am of the view that the State Government, who is the owner of the Transmission Line, should pay the compensation first and get it reimbursed by the Contractor in case the latter is found to be liable to pay the same. 7. In view of what has been stated above, it is hereby directed that the State Government should pay the compensation as may be determined by the competent authority as per law. 7. In view of what has been stated above, it is hereby directed that the State Government should pay the compensation as may be determined by the competent authority as per law. The whole process should be completed within a period of six months from today. 8. The two Writ Petitions are disposed off accordingly.