Bombay High Court
Hemlata Wd/O Shri Chandrau ... vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 55.WP.3087-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 1878 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3087 OF 2019
( Hemlata Wd/o Shri Chandru Ganwani & Ors.
Vs.
Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. Thr. Its Executive
Engineer, Amravati, & Anr. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. A.S. Mehadia, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.D. Zoting, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for the Respondent No.2/State.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 21st DECEMBER, 2021.
Heard Mr. Zoting, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, upon instructions, states that there are
20 towers small and big in the land of Kh.No. 91/2
owned by the petitioners. Some more towers are likely to
come, considering that the Sub Station is situated
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the said land.
2. Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the
petitioners, considering the above statement and the map
placed at record page 38 submits, that the entire land of
Kh.No. 91/2, has been rendered unusable on account of
20 towers existing on the said land. He therefore
submits, that though the learned District Magistrate,
Nagpur by his judgment dated 30.03.2019 had directed
the Higher Authorities to verify this position and take a
2 55.WP.3087-2019.odt
decision in this regard, nothing has been done. He
further invites my attention to the order dated
05.09.2019 passed by this Court recording the above
position and the issue of determining compensation as
directed by the learned District Magistrate, Nagpur in the
order dated 30.03.2019 and filing of a detailed affidavit
by the respondent No.1, as to its stand on the claim of
the petitioners in respect of the damage caused due to
the erection of the towers. Thereafter, an affidavit has
been filed by the respondent No.1 on 17.10.2019,
wherein, the claim for compensation as directed to be
considered by the learned District Magistrate, Nagpur has
been claimed to be time barred. The entire attitude of the
respondent No.1 speaks of a position, where the law is
being used to bulldoze the rights of a land owner. When
it is an admitted position, as admitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1, on instructions,
that there are as many as 20 towers small and big
standing on the land of Kh.No. 91/2, owned by the
petitioners, it is an obvious position, that the said land
has been rendered unusable and uncultivable. Moreover,
over and above the above position, Civil Application No.
1878/2021, has been filed seeking permission to
complete the work of foundation and erection of another
tower in the said land. Though, Section 10(d) of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be referred as
"the Act of 1885") permits the Telegraph Authority, to
place and maintain a Telegraph Line with as little
damage as possible, the present situation, is quite out
of the ordinary, as because of the Sub Station situated
3 55.WP.3087-2019.odt
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the land of the
petitioners, the land is literally littered with transmission
towers big and small (as of now 20 in numbers). This
situation, has never been conceived by Section 10(d) of
the Act of 1885, which only permits the laying down of a
Telegraph Line over the immovable property. The
Mandate of Section 10(d) of the Act of 1885, would not
permit the Telegraph Authority to act in a manner so that
the entire land owned by a person, in this case the
petitioners, would become unusable, specifically so when
the Act of 1885 does not contemplate according to the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the acquisition
of land. At the same time, it will have to be seen, that
every citizen of the country has a right to protect and
enjoy his property, and any deprivation thereof, at the
hands of any Authority, can only be at recompence being
made. In the instant matter, the respondent No.1, is
hiding behind the shield of the Statute to say that
recompence cannot be made but at the same time,
seeking permission to erect more towers in the land of
the petitioners. In my considered opinion, such an
attitude on part of the respondent No.1, cannot be
countenanced and the petitioners, cannot be deprived of
the use of the land in such a manner, so that the entire
land is rendered unusable at the behest of the respondent
No.1, who is not even willing to compensate the
petitioners. The offer of compensation limited to the
area, upon which, the tower is to be erected, is
something, which would add insult to the injury, already
suffered by the petitioners, due to the erection of as
4 55.WP.3087-2019.odt
many as 20 towers in the land of the petitioners. The
respondent No.1/Authority, though a creature of a
Statute cannot be insensitive to such a position, so as to
make a farce of the rights of the petitioners, considering
which, I do not see any merit in the application. Civil
Application No. 1878/2021 is therefore dismissed.
3. The amount of Rs. 10,81,000/-(Rs. Ten
Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Only) deposited in the
Court, be refunded back to the respondent No.1.
4. List the matter after Christmas Vacation
2021.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
Signed By:SHRIKANT
DAMODHAR BHIMTE
Signing Date:22.12.2021 14:20
