AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:
“In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this petition and issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why -
(A)A Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Respondent authorities to take necessary steps for re-settlement ofthe affected two families over the land provided by the petitioner from the Government land and approved the new rout of the electricity supply and for construction of 220 KV DC transmission line connecting the existing 400 KV Misa Grid PGCIL to the existing 132 KV Sankardev Nagar GSS-AEGCL as per proposed Location as per of Poll No.3 to Location No.4 may be shifted to the new approved route as shown in the (Annexure-4) and upon cause or causes being shown and upon perusal of the records and hearing the parties this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the Rule absolute; and/or pass any such further/ other Order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
...”
As per the facts projected, the petitioner is in possession of a plot of land over which there was a move to draw electricity lines by the AEGCL.The petitioner had earlier filed WP(C)/6459/2025 which was disposed of on 17.11.2025 directing the respondentnos. 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner filed on 17.06.2025 by a Speaking Order.The hearing was accordingly done and on 23.12.2025, an order was passed wherein an observation was made that the petitioner could suggest an alternative route with an undertaking that the persons affected would be taken care of by him.The petitioner claims thatjoint surveys were done,undertaking given and an alternate route was submitted by the petitioner which was also taken cognizanceof by the District Administration.However, theAEGCL authorities have not taken any steps for accepting the alternate route submitted by the petitioner and rather insisting on the original route which would adversely affect the rights and interests of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition has been filed.
I have heard Shri S.K. Ghosh,learned counsel for the petitioner.I have also heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, AEGCL.
Shri Ghosh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order dated 23.12.2025, joint survey were held which had culminated in the alternate route as projected in a map.He has also referred to the office order by the AEGCL dated 20.02.2026 wherein an offer was made to the petitioner to suggest a feasible route along with the District Administration and to relocate any dwellers.Hehas drawn the attention of this Court to the sketch map dated 21.03.2026 wherein the alternate route has been clearlymarked.He has submitted that the alternate route would be over government land and the two families which would be affected have already been shifted by the petitioner.He has also submitted that no acquisition or requisition proceedings have been initiated before the proposed impugned action.
Reliance has also been placed on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 5(Circle Officer) on 17.06.2026 and the averments made in paragraph 4 are pressed into service which read as follows:
“4.That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 9 of the Writ Petition the deponent begs to state that as per letter received from the petitioner an alternative route through Dag No. 98 and Dag No. 99 of Village Pamgaon, Mouza Lanka Circle, Lanka was proposed after a joint verification by the petitioner and AEGCL (Copy enclosed). Based on this report, a field enquiry was then conducted by o/o the Circle Officer and observed that two house hold will be required to be shifted in case this alternate route is taken. If it is found technically feasible by the AEGCL, the office of the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle does not have any objection if the alternate route through Dag No. 98 and Dag No. 99 is taken.
Further the office of the Circle Officer, Lanka Revenue Circle does not have objection if the petitioner accommodate the two families on petitioner's land (who will be required to relocate in case alternate route is taken) provided petitioner settle these families through ‘Gift deed’ executed as per prevalent law.”
The saidCircle Officer has filed an additional affidavit on 20.07.2026 as the letter dated 23.03.2026 mentioned in the affidavit could not be enclosed and the said letter has been duly enclosed in the additional affidavit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that since the petitioner had discharged his obligation pursuant to the offer made to him which has also been endorsed by the District Administration, due consideration is required to be given by the AEGCL and the matter will be settled.
Per contra, Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, AEGCLhas submitted that though as a matter of fact, after the order dated 23.12.2025, joint surveyswere made, the alternate route suggested by the petitioner is an unfeasible one.He has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made in the letter dated 23.12.2025itself wherein certain grounds have been cited based on technical expertise.For ready reference, the grounds are extracted herein below:
“1)The angle of deviation of the AP-2 after rerouting is 107*24 1273" LT, which is more than 60 deg., hence not feasible.
2)The route passes over residential area/houses between AP-2 & AP-3.
3)Also the route passes over the boundary area of the Govt. Office (Dept. of handloom & textile) between AP-2 & AP-3.
4)Also the route passes over the boundary area of the public park between AP-3 & AP-4.
5)The angle of deviation of the AP-5 after rerouting is 76*12'36 91" LT which is more than 60 deg., hence not feasible.”
The said letter had however made an observation that proposal to the petitioner could be reconsidered pursuant to which, it appears that joint survey was done.The learned Standing Counselhas however submitted that the present sketch map presented by the petitionerwas not approved by the AEGCL.
Since the matter would have significance, this Court,vide an order dated 06.08.2026 had directed the learned Standing Counselto obtain specific instructions in this regard.
Shri Gogoi, the learned StandingCounselhas obtained written instructions dated 07.08.2026 as per which, no joint survey was conducted with the AEGCL resulting in the proposed map.
To dispel any doubt, this Court has looked intothe map which has been enclosed to the writ petition. As mentioned above, the said map also appears to have been taken cognizance of by the Circle Officer. A perusal of the map will however reveal that the same is not endorsedby any authorities not to talk about the AEGCL.The cognizance by the Circle Officeralso appears to be on the strength of a letter issued by the petitioner on 23.03.2026.Though, as admitted by the learned Standing Counsel that joint surveys were indeed made after the order dated 23.12.2025,the specific stand of the AEGCL is that such joint surveys did not culminate in endorsing an alternate plan as claimed by the petitioner vide the mapenclosed in Annexure4 to the writ petition.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has relied on the map which is a part of Annexure 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2 on dated 04.06.2026.A perusal of the said map would show that not only the same is endorsed by the authorities, there is a detailprojection of the houses and other structures in the route as well as the alternate route suggested by the petitioner.
The learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kushala Shetty and Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69, wherein the following observations have been made:
“24.Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public Interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public Interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullity the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.”
The aforesaid decision is on the aspect of the minimal scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to technical expertise.
Shri Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel has however submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to compensation in case of loss suffered by laying of the present transmission lines in terms of the notification dated 04.11.2024.
The rival submission made by the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.
In the instant case, though videletter dated 23.12.2025, the case of the petitionerwasrejected, a further window was opened by allowing the petitioner to submit alternate route.In the aforesaidexercise, though joint survey appears to have been done, the map submitted by the petitioner does not appear to have been done in consultation or approval of the authorities, more specifically, the AEGCL. After all, the work in question involves highly technical expertise and the reasons stated in the letter dated 23.12.2025 appear to be after due deliberation and taking into consideration all the relevant aspects which have been quoted above. This Court is of the opinion that in such a matter requiring technical expertise which also involves the requirement of maintaining safety, this Court would be loath in substituting such expert opinion.
In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussions, no interference is called for and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
The interim order passed on 27.04.2026 stands vacated.
Dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way for the petitioner to seek appropriate compensation, if entitled to as per the existing notification.