Bombay High Court
Shobha Prakash Sharma vs State Govt. Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. ... on 30 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 1040of2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1040 of 2012
Shobha Prakash Sharma,
Age 40 Years, Occupation- Farmer,
R/o At Pardhi Nagar, MIDC Hingana Road,
Tahsil Hingna, District- Nagpur.
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] State Government of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Industries,
Energy and Labour Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2] Maharashtra State Electricity Company Ltd.,
Through its Executive Engineer, EHTV Lines
Construction Division, Vidyut Bhavan,
Second Floor, Katol Road, Nagpur.
3] The District Magistrate/
The Collector Nagpur, Civil Lines,
District - Nagpur.
RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Shri G.E. Moharir, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 30/01/2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Nobody for the petitioner. Mrs. N.P. Mehta,
2 1040of2012.doc
learned A.G.P. appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and
Shri G.E. Moharir, learned Advocate appears for Respondent No.2.
2. By the impugned communication dated
07-8-2010, respondent No.2 has informed the petitioner about the
need and work of erecting Tower No. 44/3 in field Survey No.
116/2, at Village Panjari, Tah. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur. It is
mentioned that the necessary authorizations have been obtained
and for trees situated on the said land, the necessary arrangement
as per law will be adhered to. The petitioner is also informed that
for loss sustained, damages, as per the policy of the transmission
company, the compensation would be paid to the petitioner.
3. The learned A.G.P. and Shri Moharir, Advocate submit
that this location was on Koradi-II to Wardha Power-Grid.
Shri Moharir, Advocate submits that the work of erecting tower
and connecting all towers i.e. laying of power lines is already over,
lines are charged and functioning. He, therefore, submits that the
challenge is rendered infructuous. As far as the grievances about
the damages and compensation, are concerned the same can be
resolved in terms of Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
4. The learned A.G.P. submits that though initially on
3 1040of2012.doc
6-2-2012 this Court granted stay, after hearing all the concerned
parties on 3-11-2014, while admitting petition that interim order
has been vacated.
5. Shri G.E. Moharir, Advocate has invited Court's
attention to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vivek
Brajendra Singh v/s State Government of Maharashtra and others
reported in 2012 (4) Mh.L.J. page 625. He submits that the other
land owners/farmers who were having their properties on the
same transmission line did approach this Court in that matter and
the Court has finally answered the controversy in favour of the
respondents. He submits that those petitioners challenged the
constitutional validity of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003
and hence, matters were before the Division Bench.
6. Perusal of the judgment of Division Bench mentioned
supra in paragraph no. 1 reveals that there also very same work
i.e. laying 400 K.V electric transmission line from Koradi-II to
Wardha Power-Grid formed subject matter.
7. In this situation, I find that the controversy is already
answered by the Division Bench against the petitioner.
4 1040of2012.doc
Accordingly, with liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance in
relation to compensation/damages as per law before competent
authority, I dispose of the writ petition. Rule is discharged. No
costs.
JUDGE
rkn
