Kanhaiya Alias Kana Jat vs Power Grid Corporation Limited ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6142 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kanhaiya Alias Kana Jat vs Power Grid Corporation Limited ... on 12 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:35973]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15161/2025

Kanhaiya Alias Kana Jat S/o Magna Jat, Aged About 65 Years, R/
o Village- Agarpura, Haled, Bhilwara, (Raj.).
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Power Grid Corporation Limited, Through Its Managing
         Director, B-9 Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai.
2.       Power Grid Beawar - Mandsor, Transmission Limited,
         Through Its Senior General Manager (Power Grid),
         Beawar.
3.       District Collector And Magistrate, Bhilwara.
4.       Sub-Divisional Magistrate,                Bhilwara,        Tehsil   Bhilwara,
         District Bhilwara.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Kalpatru Tripathi.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sharad Kothari.


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

12/08/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem submit that the

present writ petition may be decided in the same terms as was

decided on 21.04.2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Maniram Vs. Power Grid Corporation Limited and

Ors. (SBCWP No.6706/2025). The said judgment reads as

follows :-

"1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents, more particularly the notice dated 10.03.2025, whereby the respondents have proposed to lay electricity line and tower on the petitioner's land.

2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are entering into petitioner's land without the amount of compensation being determined or paid. He contended that unless the amount of compensation is determined and paid to the petitioner, the electricity line cannot be laid through his land.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the order dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure-7) and the order dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure-8).

[2025:RJ-JD:35973] (2 of 2) [CW-15161/2025]

4. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand relied upon the provisions of section 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1885') and submitted that the respondents are legally empowered to enter into petitioner's land and construct the electricity tower and lay down line and the compensation can be paid later, once the same is calculated on the basis of damages caused to the land owner.

5. Learned counsel also invited Court's attention towards the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nathu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4474/2025).

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and statutory provisions.

7. On perusal of provisions of the Act of 1885, this Court is of the considered opinion that the electricity line can be laid without the amount of compensation being paid, subject of course to the condition that the land owner shall be sufficiently compensated in terms of circulars issued from time to time for calculation of the compensation amount.

8. So far as Annexure-7 reliance whereupon has been placed is concerned, the same provides standard operating procedure. It nowhere prohibits the respondents from laying down the line without payment of the compensation.

9. Such being the position, this Court does not find any substance in petitioner's contention that unless the compensation is determined or paid to the petitioner, no electricity line can be laid.

10. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

11. It shall, however, be required of the respondents to calculate and pay the compensation applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner's rights to lay challenge to the amount of compensation determined shall stand reserved.

12. The compensation shall be paid within a period of six months of the electricity line being laid and/or electricity tower being erected in petitioner's land.

13. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the

controversy in the present case is similar to the controversy raised

in the case of Maniram (supra), however, only difference is that in

the present case, the respondents are installing electricity tower.

4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed

of in the same terms as in the case of Maniram (supra).

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J 22-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)