Purosttam Balmi vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 4077 MP

                           1
 IN    THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                 ON THE 15 th OF MARCH, 2023
                WRIT PETITION No. 11543 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
PUROSTTAM BALMIK S/O SHRI SUDAMA BALMIK,
AGED 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O
WARD NO 1, GORMI DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                    .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANTOSH AGARWAL - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND POWER, RAFI
      MARG, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN NEW DELHI
      110001

2.    POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
      THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
      CORPORATE      HEAD  OFFICE B-9   KUTUB
      INDUSTRIAL AREA, KATWARIYA SARAY, NEW
      DELHI 110001 (DELHI)

3.    POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED,
      THROUGH ITS MANAGER, M.P. REGIONAL
      OFFICE JAWALPUR 400Kv SUB POWER GIRD
      PATAN ROAD, NEAR SUKHA VILLAGE JABALPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    M ANAGER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER POWER
      GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, POWER
      GRID CAMPUS, ADUPURA POST- RORA DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    THE COLLECTOR, BHIND     DISTRICT   BHIND
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI HARSHVARDHAN TOPRE - ADVOCATE FOR
                                          2
RESPONDENTS NO.2,3 AND 4)

       This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                         ORDER

At the outset, Shri Topre, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4, pointed out that similar controversy has been addressed in Writ Appeal No. 269/2014 (Alkesh Tripathi vs. The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and others), decided on 17.11.2014, hence in the wake of the said judgment no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Besides, he submits that the petitioners have been given compensation for erection of high tension electricity line passing through agricultural field.

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be subserved by keeping this writ petition pending.

At this stage, Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that he has no knowledge about the payment of compensation.

In that eventuality, if the petitioners have not been paid compensation, they shall always be free to revive the petition. With the aforesaid caveat this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the order of Division Bench of this Court in Alkesh Tripathi (supra). Further, if the petitioners are aggrieved by quantum of compensation, they may approach the appropriate forum.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE yog

YOGESH VERMA 2023.03.20 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 16:56:35 +05'30'