Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Malik vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26292 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sandeep Malik
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tapan Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Shukla,Pratik J. Nagar
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Pratik J. Nagar appears for respondent no.8. Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5 and 7.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to respondents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner in his araji in question and for a further direction to the respondents not to set up poles for high tension wires on the araji of the petitioner without giving any opportunity.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pooram Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2016 (7) ADJ 501 and as such it is submitted that similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition also.
Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to refute the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well the respectfully considered the judgment cited at Bar. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment in Pooram Singh (Supra) is quoted as under:-
"...........10. We have occasion to go through the scheme of Electricity Act, 2003, Telegraph Act and Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 which clearly provide for the authority to the Corporation for placing electricity supply line and apparatus for transmission of power which the telegraph authority possesses under the Telegraph Act. If a person objects to establishment of poles and drawing electricity lines over his land, the authority has to apply for permission to the District Magistrate and in such a case the District Magistrate has to work out a fair compensation to be paid to the persons within reasonable time. In case the person is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, which has been offered to him by the District Magistrate, the District Judge in such cases has been authorised to work out compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Telegraph Act. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 clarifies the situation that nothing contained in Rule shall effect the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act. The provisions of Section 164 of the Act are not at all controlled/governed/subject to the provisions of Works of Licensees Rule, 2006 and same is an independent exercise of authority.
11. In Deva Raj Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1977 Allahabad 452, a Division Bench of this Court had examined the provisions of Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is similar to the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and observed that in view of the notification issued by the State Government under Section 51 of the 1910 Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, the respondents have the power to instal the towers on the land owned by a person. Similarly the Madras High Court, in E. Venkatesan & Ors. Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras & Ors., AIR 1977 Madras 64 while dealing with the powers under Section 51 of the Act of 1910, also observed :-
"From the above settled position of law, it is clear that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Section 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 electricity 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............"
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the construction of transmission power service lines cannot be stopped. However, an appropriate direction can be issued to the competent authority for determining the compensation in accordance with law and pay the same to the tenure holders over whose land the towers are being erected.
We accordingly dispose of this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate with regard to his claim alongwith certified copy of this order and other supported materials, whereupon the District Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner for compensation in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021
SP/
