AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the respondents.
The writ petition, wherein, the prayer was made to command the respondents not to erect, commission electrical transmission line and Tower of 400 KVA on or above the land of the petitioner, without their consent, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding as follows:
In view of scheme of the Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Electricity Act, 2003, the Rules of 2006 and Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, and the notifications dated 24/12/2003, it is clear that prior consent from the petitioners was/is not required.
The learned Single Judge also took note of the facts that transmission project in question undertaken by the respondents is of national importance and the project will benefit a number of States including this State and that the project was nearing its completion.
The learned Single Judge further noticed two decisions, one of Madras High Court reported in E. Venkatesan and others Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and others, , wherein it was held that;
From the above settled position of law it is clear that when the Electricity Board exercises power u/s 51 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not acquiring any land. They are only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electric lines for which full compensation is given for the damage caused. It is also clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before laying the poles or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them.
And another decision of M.P. High Court reported in Rajak and Others Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Indore and Another, , wherein it was held as follows:
In view of the power vested in the Generating Company NTPC u/s 42 of the Act read with part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, there can be no valid objection by the petitioners to the implementation of the sanctioned scheme either on the principles of natural justice or on the ground of unauthorized user of petitioner''s land in respect of which compensation has been provided for under proviso (d) to Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act.
Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly argued that without the consent of the land owner or occupier, the respondents had no authority under the law to erect, commission or fix Tower on their land.
The reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order for rejecting the arguments of the writ petitioner is valid and we concur with the findings arrived at by the learned Singly Judge. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Moreover, it is reported that now the whole work is over and project is complete.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed having found no merit.