AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashutosh J. Shastri, J
By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
“21(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent – GETCO to remove the two electricity lines passing over the lands of the petitioner herein as well as the third electricity line lying on the lands of the petitioner, and may further be pleased to direct respondent – GETCO not to pass any electricity lines over the lands bearing Revenue Survey No. 227, 228 and 229 belonging to the petitioner herein;
(AA) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus/ certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the learned Deputy Collector in Land Case No. 6 of 2019 (Annexure-L herein);
(B) During pendency and final disposal of the present application, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent – GETCO to maintain status quo, qua the lands bearing Revenue Survey No. 227, 228 and 229 belonging to the petitioner herein;
(BB) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of order dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned Deputy Collector in Land Case No. 6 of 2019 (Annexure-L herein);
(C ) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be though just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and occupier of the land bearing Survey Nos. 227, 228 and 229. The respondent authority wanted to lay dual electric lines in the area and initially when the District Magistrate passed an order on 09.08.2016 allowing application filed by the respondent – GETCO under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 the lands belonging to the petitioner was not being included. However without there being any permission, the respondent authority has passed two electricity lines from the lands belonging to the petitioner and for that purpose, no notice was issued to the petitioner nor any procedure has been observed. It has been the grievance of the petitioner that the said action of laying down two electricity lines across the lands of the petitioner was quite contrary to the order which has been passed by the District Magistrate on 09.08.2016, and as such, the action on the part of the respondent authority is not only in conflict with the order passed by the District Magistrate, but is also violative of the fundamental right under Articles 14, 21 as also under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
2.1. The case of the petitioner is that respondent – GETCO has laid down dual electric lines of 66 KV Palanpur, Palanpur-1, Lilo Laalavada and for that purpose of laying, towers/electric poles were installed at various parts of the lands belonging to the petitioner. At that point of time, it has been asserted by the petitioner that on 22.01.2016, notices were issued to the owners of the land over which the company intended to install the pole for laying down the lines. No doubt, powers are available with the respondent authority by virtue of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, but for the said purpose, some procedure deserves to be observed, which has not been observed and apart from that for the damages to the lands in question, reasonable amount of compensation is to be awarded. The said notice was responded by the petitioner and the other land owners of surrounding area. At the relevant point of time has also questioned the said notice dated 22.01.2016 by filing petition being Special Civil Application 3075 of 2016 and while disposing of the said petition vide order dated 05.04.2016, it was observed that the District Magistrate shall pass necessary order after giving due opportunity to the affected persons including the petitioner and the petition came to be disposed of. In the meantime, the respondent authority also filed an application on 01.04.2016 under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 along with the map and sought permission to start work for installation of electricity lines over the lands of the petitioner. Though it was originally not intended to affect the lands belonging to the petitioner, but then somehow the lines have been intended to be installed and later on even the District Magistrate also passed the impugned order on 09.08.2016 allowing application under Section 16 and granted permission to install the electricity towers over the lands belonging to the land owners. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact that the authority was under an obligation to observe the terms of the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, but having not done so, the land owners said to have again approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application 16946 of 2016 challenging the order as well as action of the respondent authority. The said petition came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 28.12.2017. After the disposal of the said petition, the respondent – GETCO initiated work of laying dual electric lines of 66KV Palanpur, Palanpur-1, Lilo Laalavada. At that juncture, to the utter shock of the petitioner though the land of the petitioner was not to be affected, in an arbitrary manner, on 16.07.2018, when the petitioner was not available, two electricity lines across the lands of the petitioner have been implemented. On account of this laying down of two electricity lines, animal shelter, houses belonging to labourers were being effected and as such, the petitioner requested the respondent authority, but then on the very same day i.e. 16.07.2018, the respondents were trying to lay down even the third electricity line and as such, left with no other alternate, petitioner has to resist the same by way of a specific objection vide communication dated 17.07.2018. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent was under an obligation to lay down electricity lines, in consonance with the original order, but the dimension has been deliberately changed and then the respondent authority decided to implant the electric pole by laying down across the lands belonging to the petitioner. Even otherwise, on 18.07.2018, the respondent authority rushed down to the spot in an arbitrary manner with the police force and the work was intended to be completed and since same was in utter violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, the petitioner was constrained to rush down this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the reliefs as set out herein-above.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, on unilateral version, this Court was pleased to issue notice returnable by 26.07.2018 but later on, it appears that in the absence of any interim order, the respondent authority proceeded to lay down the electric lines. Today, when the mater is taken up for hearing, Mr. Rushabh Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this action is in utter violation of the previous order as well as in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and as such, the lands belonging to the petitioner could not have been utilized in the manner in which the authority has used. Hence, this act is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and as such, the reliefs as prayed for may be granted.
At this stage, Mr. S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent authority who filed a detailed exhaustive affidavit on page 116, and has asserted that by passage of time the line has already been implanted and it is charged as well and as such, at this stage of the proceedings, no relief as prayed for deserves to be granted. This statement has been made on the basis of clear instructions from the respondent authority and has reiterated that the line which has already been laid down is in function right from 01.07.2021 and as such, has requested not to pass any order as prayed for even otherwise on merits also, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authority has tried to justify the action of laying down the line and has reiterated that challenge in the petition is ill founded.
At this stage of the proceedings, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of this statement having been made, electricity line has already been laid down and is in operation right from 01.07.2021 and in view of this irreversible situation, at least the authority is under an obligation to pay compensation for the damage which has been caused to the lands of the petitioner on account of such work and as such, has requested to issue appropriate direction to consider the request of the petitioner for seeking appropriate compensation, and as such, has reiterated his submission only to the effect that some suitable direction be issued to see that appropriate compensation reasonably may be provided to the petitioner and for which, under the instructions, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the petitioner would like to approach the respondent authority with such request for appropriate reasonable compensation.
5.1. To this submission, learned advocate Mr. Hasurkar, has submitted that the authority might have provided compensation, but the petitioner might not have accepted the said compensation. However, learned advocate Mr. Hasurkar has submitted that if the petitioner approaches the authority with a request for seeking such compensation, the authority will examine and provide the same at the earliest. In view of this, present petition deserves to be disposed of on the following line, which would meet the ends of justice on account of such limited issue which is now surviving.
The petitioner under the instruction is permitted to withdraw the petition with a view to approach the respondent authority by way of representation for seeking appropriate compensation for the lands which have been affected on account of such act of the respondent.
6.1. As and when the petitioner approaches the authority, the authority is directed to examine and consider the same in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate order preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
6.2. It is made clear that since the Court has not examined the merits of the case as not called upon, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the authority and as and when such approach is made, the authority shall pass an order at the earliest within the period as indicated above. However, it is made clear that if the compensation is found to be inadequate, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for enhancement of such. It is also made clear that if the request of the petitioner has not been adhered to, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in an appropriate forum permissible under the law.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Notice is discharged.