[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajim Khan vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:7940) on 12 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:7940]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3122/2026
1. Ajim Khan S/o Mahmood Khan, Aged About 76 Years,
Resident Of Ranasar, Churu, Tehsil And District- Churu
(Raj.).
2. Om Prakash S/o Late Shri Ruparam, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District-
Churu.
3. Chimna Ram S/o Late Ruparam, Aged About 68 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District- Churu.
4. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi W/o Chimnaram, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District-
Churu.
5. Bhanwari Devi W/o Latge Bhebharam, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District-
Churu.
6. Subhash Chandra S/o Late Bhebharam, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District-
Churu.
7. Dharmpal S/o Late Bhebharam, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District- Churu.
8. Smt. Saroj D/o Late Bhebharam, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District- Churu.
(Petitioner No. 2 To 8 Through Their Power Of Attorney
Holder Petitioner No. 2 Om Prakash S/o Late Shri
Rupraram ).
9. Gopichand S/o Late Rajuram, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District- Churu.
10. Smt. Panna Devi W/o Late Rajuram, Aged About 72
Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District-
Churu.
11. Smt. Nirmala D/o Late Rajuram W/o Mahendra Punia,
Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil
And District- Churu.
12. Smt. Babita D/o Late Rajuram W/o Umesh Fageria, Aged
About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And
District- Churu.
13. Smt. Suman D/o Late Rajuram W/o Moolaram, Aged
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 06:24:59 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:09:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7940] (2 of 4) [CW-3122/2026]
About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And
District- Churu.
14. Smt. Sarswati D/o Late Rajuram W/o Om Prakash Punia,
Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil
And District- Churu.
15. Ramniwas S/o Late Rajuram, Aged About 49 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhadhar, Tehsil And District- Churu.
(Petitioner No. 9 And 15 Through Their Power Of Attorney
Holder, The Petitioner No. 9 Gopichand S/o Late
Rajuram).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Power,
Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur.
4. Tehsildar, Churu, District Churu.
5. Chairman And Managing Director, Power Grid Corporation
Of India Limited, B-9, Qutub Institution Area, Katwaria
Sarai, New Delhi- 110016.
6. M/s Power Grid Bikaner- Neemrana Transmission Ltd.,
Having Its Registered Office At B-9, Qutab Institutional
Area, Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas, South West Delhi, New
Delhi- 110016.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet R. Dave and
Mr. Yugantar Ohri for
Respondent No. 5 & 6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
12/02/2026
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 06:24:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7940] (3 of 4) [CW-3122/2026]
1. At the outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents submits that an identical writ petition being S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.6706/2025; Maniram Vs. Power Grid
Corporation Limited & Ors. claiming similar relief has already
been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 21.04.2025.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
though the above mentioned writ petition is dismissed however,
respondents were asked to calculate and pay the compensation as
applicable to the petitioner in a time bound manner. He further
submits that he has no objection if the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to
refute the submission made by learned counsel for the
respondents.
4. It is noted that in the present case, the grievance of the
petitioner is with regard to the laying down of a high-tension line.
In view of the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act
1885, the petitioner cannot object to the laying down of high-
tension line but he is entitled for compensation in accordance with
law.
5. In view of the above factual position, the present writ
petition is disposed of in the same terms as Maniram (supra).
6. Needless to observe, as directed in the above referred
judgment, it shall be required of the respondents to calculate and
pay the compensation applicable to the petitioner.
7. Petitioners' right to lay challenge to the amount of
compensation determined shall stand reserved. The compensation
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 06:24:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7940] (4 of 4) [CW-3122/2026]
shall be payed within a period of six months of the electricity line
being laid over the petitioners' land.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
18-sonia/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 06:24:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
