Chattisgarh High Court
Kujaram Patel vs Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission ... on 3 July, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 02.07.2025
Order Delivered on : 03.07.2025
WPC No. 2240 of 2025
Kujaram Patel S/o Late Heeralal Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village -
Kawatal-Putkapuri, Tahsil - Pussore, District - Raigarh (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Through -
Director, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Through -
General Manager, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - Executive Engineer (High Transmission (Construction)) Division -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Bilaspur,
Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Supervising Engineer (High Transmission (Construction)) Division -
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Bilaspur,
Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer) Raigarh, Distt. - Raigarh
(C.G.).
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. PN Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Varun Sharma & Mr. Anuroop Panda,
Advocate.
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
C A V Judgment
1. Heard on IA No.1/2025, an application for grant of interim relief/stay.
2. Vide order dated 09.05.202,5 interim relief has been granted in favour
of the petitioner by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relevant
portion of which read as under:
"Heard on I.A. No. 01, an application for interim relief.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
purely as an interim measure, it is directed that the
tower which are going to be erected shall not be erected
on the land of the petitioner till the next date of hearing.
List the matter after six weeks."
3. Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
respondents-authorities have paid compensation of Rs.33,72,000/-
towards 562 trees of mango, however, as per map (Panchnama
Nakhsa) prepared by the concerned respondent-authority total 3775
trees were affected during the process of erection of transmission line
in the land of the petitioner. He further contended that if the erection of
transmission line will not stop, the petitioner would suffer irreparable
loss. Hence, he prayed that interim relief granted earlier in favour of
the petitioner may continue till final disposal of this writ petition.
4. Mr. PN Bharat, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the petitioner has presented the
present petition under misconception that since the electricity line is to
pass through his mango orchard, answering respondents are bound to
compensate him for each and every mango tree planted on his land.
The total area required for laying down transmission line was covered
by total 562 numbers of mango trees of which a huge compensation
of Rs. 33,72,000.00 has already been tendered to the petitioner way
back in the year 2020. He further contended that only 562 trees were
affected during process of laying down transmission line in the land of
the petitioner, therefore, respondent-authority has rightly paid sum of
Rs.33,72,000/- to the petitioner which is in accordance with law/rules.
He further contended that interim order of this Court creates the
hindrance and obstructing in the official work and also causing the
irreparable loss to the respondents/Company. Hence, it is prayed that
interim order be vacated. In support of his contention, he places
reliance upon the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
passed on 04.04.2024 in WPC No.1919/2024 & on 20.05.2025 in
WPC No.1889/2025.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. For ready reference, Sections 68(5) & 68(6) of the Electricity Act 2003
are reads as under:
Section 68(5)-- Where any tree standing or lying near
an overhead line or where any structure or other object
which has been placed or has fallen near an overhead
line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts or
interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with,
the conveyance or transmission of electricity or the
accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or
authority specified by the Appropriate Government may,
on the application of the licensee, cause the tree,
structure or object to be removed or otherwise dealt with
as he or it thinks fit.
Section 68(6)-- When disposing of an application under
sub-section (5), an Executive Magistrate or authority
specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of any
tree in existence before the placing of the overhead line,
award to the person interested in the tree such
compensation as he thinks reasonable, and such
person may recover the same from the licensee."
7. Relevant portion of WPC No.1919/2024 (Toleshwar Prasad Naik
versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors) reads as under:
"Para 8. According to provisions of the Act, 2003, the
Rules, 2006 and Section 10 of the Act, 1885 no prior
sanction of the licensee is needed for the erection of the
transmission line. It is further held that power
transmission is a power project of national importance;
therefore no notice is required before erecting polls or
constructing any tower.
8. In view of above quoted rulings and provisions of the Sections, no
prior permission is needed for erection of the transmission line. It is an
important facts that the power transmission is a power project of
national importance, therefore, no permission of the land owner is
required before erecting the polls or constructing any tower. There is
dispute between the parties regarding grant of proper compensation
towards the numbers of affected trees.
9. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the writ petition,
submissions of counsel for the respective parties, aforementioned
rulings/decisions, particularly the fact that no prior permission is
needed for erection of the transmission line/polls or constructing any
tower as per provisions of the Sections 68(5) & 68(6) of the Electricity
Act 2003, further considering that continuation of the interim relief
would affect the work of the respondent-authorities, therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that interim relief/stay application is
liable to be rejected.
10. Accordingly, IA No.1/2025 stands rejected. Interim order dated
09.05.2025 passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner is hereby
vacated.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
J.
