Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 494 (UTT)

Mahesh Chandra v. District Magistrate

2023-08-28

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay damages towards use and occupation of petitioner’s land, towards value of the trees which have been uprooted while laying down line and erecting tower as also suitable damages for the loss of the petitioner has suffered due to corridor restriction as mentioned above. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Award cost of the petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is a case of the petitioner that he was informed by the respondent no. 2 General Manager, Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. (“Corporation”) that a electric line is to be drawn through his property for which purpose 652 eucalyptus trees were to be cut. The petitioner was told that he would be compensated for the same. The trees were cut, but the petitioner was not paid the compensation despite repeated requests. When the respondents tried to erect the towers and raise the line, the petitioner objected to it. But, with the help of police personnel, the line was raised and tower erected. Hence, the petition for claiming compensation of trees, those were uprooted in the process. 4. On behalf of the respondent no. 2 the Corporation, counter affidavit is filed. It is argued that the force was never applied for laying the lines. It all was done with the consent of the petitioner. There is no poll or permanent fixture raised in the field of the petitioner, only power line passed through the property of the petitioner. It is further the case of the respondent no. 2 the Corporation that the compensation amounting to Rs. 2,67,165/- had already been assessed. But, the petitioner is not providing his bank details so that the money may be transmitted in his account. 5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the State. According to it, in the property in question, there were no trees. In fact, it has not been the case of the respondent no. 2 the Corporation. According to the respondent no. 2 the Corporation, compensation for trees is to be paid to the petitioner, which has already been assessed. 5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the State. According to it, in the property in question, there were no trees. In fact, it has not been the case of the respondent no. 2 the Corporation. According to the respondent no. 2 the Corporation, compensation for trees is to be paid to the petitioner, which has already been assessed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the power line has been laid forcibly. In such situation, the matter should be reconsidered by the District Magistrate, in view of the Judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 71 of 2015, Smt. Shashi Sharma and Others vs. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 the Corporation would submit that the facts of the case in the case of Smt. Shashi Sharma (supra) were quite distinct. In that case, the electric line had not been laid. Therefore, keeping in view of the provision of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (“the Act”) directions were issued for consideration of the matter by the District Magistrate. Whereas, it is argued that in the instance case, the electric line had already been raised, compensation has been assessed and cheque is ready, which the petitioner is not taking. Learned counsel would submit that if the petitioner is not happy with the amount of compensation that is being paid to him, he may very well raise the issue before the District Judge, in view of Section 16 (3) of the Act. 8. In the case of Smt. Shashi Sharma objection was raised for illegally and forcibly erecting towers for laying transmission line on the field of the petitioner of that case. Under those circumstances, the Court had directed the District Magistrate to look into the affairs in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. 9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the power line had already been laid. Though, the petitioner has stated that it was forcibly erected or laid. Whereas, according to the respondent no. 2 the Corporation, the petitioner consented for laying of the transmission line. This is not now an issue before the Court. 10. The stage of Section 16 sub-section (1) of the Act had already been over in the instant case. The compensation, according to the respondent no. Whereas, according to the respondent no. 2 the Corporation, the petitioner consented for laying of the transmission line. This is not now an issue before the Court. 10. The stage of Section 16 sub-section (1) of the Act had already been over in the instant case. The compensation, according to the respondent no. 2 the Corporation, had already been calculated which the petitioner is not receiving. 11. What is being argued on behalf of the respondent no. 2 the Corporation is that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the court of District Judge, under Section 16 (3) of the Act. 12. Section 16 (3) of the Act reads as follows: “16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority: (1).................................... (2).................................... (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for the purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.” 13. Since the transmission line had already been laid and compensation had already been assessed, now if the petitioner raises concern with regard to the sufficiency of the compensation amount that is being offered to him, he may very well approach the District Judge in view of Section 16 (3) of the Act. 14. Accordingly, there is no reason to make any interference with the petition. It stands disposed of with the above observation.