Sri Timirendu Bhaumik vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 1255 Tri

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                              WP(C)No.193 of 2021

Sri Timirendu Bhaumik,
son of late Gopi Ballav Bhaumik,
resident of Badurtali Lane,
Krishnanagar, P.S. West Agartala,
P.O. & Sub-Division-Agartala,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799001
                                                    ......... Petitioner(s)
                                   -Versus-

1. The State of Tripura,
represented by its Secretary,
Revenue Department, Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, P.S. New Capital
Complex,     P.S.     Kunjaban,   Sub-Division-
Agartala, District : West Tripura

2. District Magistrate & Collector,
Sepahijala District

3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District

4. Tripura State Electricity Corporation
Ltd.,
(Government of Tripura Enterprise),
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.O. & Sub-
Division-Agartala, District : West Tripura,
PIN : 799001, represented by its General
Manager

5. The Manager,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Transmission Sub-Division, 79 Tilla, Agartala,
District : West Tripura

6. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
(Government of India Enterprise),
having its registered office at B-9,
Kutab Institutional Area, Katwaria, Sarair,
New Delhi, PIN : 110016, represented by its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director
                                              Page 2 of 7




      7. The Manager,
      Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
      132 K.V. Kumarghat Sub-Station,
      Kumarghat, Ratiabari, P.O. & P.S. Kumarghat,
      District : Unakoti, PIN : 799264

      8. Senior Manager,
      Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
      Ramnagar Road No.6, P.O. Ramnagar,
      Sub-Division-Agartala, District : West Tripura,
      PIN : 799002
                                                                    ........ Respondent(s)

      For the Petitioner (s)             :       Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
      For the Respondent (s)             :       Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
                                                 Mr. N. Majumder, Adv.
                                                 Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Adv.
      Date of hearing & delivery of      :       15.12.2021
      Judgment and Order
      Whether fit for reporting          :       YES


                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                                JUDGMENT & ORDER

Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as

Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, Mr. N.

Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5 and Mr. R.K.P.

Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.6, 7 and 8.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the relief viz. (a) a

direction on the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner or to vacate the land of

the petitioner which has been utilized for constructing towers for laying transmission line.

The said land falls within the land recorded in Khatian No.2363 of Mouja-

Gokulnagar under Sepahijala District. The relevant fact as adverted in the writ petition is

that, all on a sudden, the petitioner found that some activities were going over his land by

felling down trees which were standing on the said land. According to him, all those

activities were for erecting „pillars‟. However, Mr. R.K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents No.6, 7 and 8 has confirmed that those are not only pillars but the

towers for laying the transmission lines. The petitioner could not understand who the

people were involved on these activities. However, in contemplation, he wrote a letter to

the Senior General Manager, Power Grid Corporation Limited on 14.03.2020 asking him to

remove "electric pillars" within a month from the date of receipt of the said letter

[Annexure-2 to the writ petition]. It has been further stated by Mr. Singh, learned counsel

that one pillar, in addition to the tower, was constructed over the land of the petitioner.

Since no action was taken, the petitioner had written another letter on 23.06.2020 to the

Senior General Manager, Power Grid Corporation Limited. After that, on 09.09.2020, the

petitioner received a notice dated 03.03.2020 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] from the

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited whereby the petitioner was informed that a

portion of his land having an area of 896.93 sq. ft. would be utilized for purpose of

construction of tower footings/stringing etc. It had been also informed that the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh will assess the necessary compensation in that regard.

3. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a

categorical submission that even though, the notice is dated 03.03.2020, but it was

handed down to the petitioner on 09.09.2020. To support his contention, Mr. Lodh,

learned counsel has referred to the notice dated 15.09.2020 [Annexure-5 to the writ

petition] wherefrom the following is available :

"Whereas in reference letter of the Sr. Deputy Collector O/o the District Magistrate & Collector, Sepahijala vide no.F.5(44)-VOLL-II/DM/SPJ/REV/18/960 dated, 09/6/20 in connection with objection from the land owner against

construction of 132 KV LILU of Surjyamaninagar-Rokhia at Gakulnagar under South Champamura T.K."

4. On 27.01.2021, the petitioner received one notice from the advocate of the

Power Grid Corporation Limited stating that they had lodged caveat in the Hon‟ble High

Court of Tripura, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sepahijala District and in the

Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sepahijala, Bishalgarh and as such in the event of

institution of the suit along with any application for temporary injunction, the said Power

Grid Corporation is entitled to get the notice of such institution in advance so that they can

have their say before any interim order is passed.

5. The respondents have filed their reply separately. The respondents No.1, 2

and 3 represented by Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. have stated in their reply that for

purpose of constructing the tower, from R.S. plot No.2158/8894 recorded in Khatian

No.2363 under mouja-Gokulpur, a piece of land measuring 895.93 sq. ft. comprised in Plot

No.2158/8894 recorded under Khatian No.896.93 had been sought to be taken over. The

construction was proposed to lay down 132 KV LILU line at Surjyamaninagar, Rokhia. The

petitioner was requested to remain present on 18.09.2020 with documents to elucidate

why he had reservation against the acquisition. It appears from the reply filed by the

respondents No.1, 2 and 3 that the petitioner was unwilling to part with any land from his

land as recorded on the plot No.2158/8894. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have placed

on records one communication dated 02.12.2020 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District reflecting that the due compensation was assured. That

apart, the land may be taken over subject to observance and strict compliance of the

relevant provisions of law. But Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel was categorical in stating that

no compensation has been made, neither the demand for vacation has been attended to.

6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Power Grid Corporation Limited-

respondents has stated that since the said construction of the tower/pillar is a part of a

mission mode project, there had been no time to be sluggish but to go for the erection of

the tower or the pillar for laying down the transmission line, so that those lines can be

dedicated for the beneficiaries of the said project called North Eastern Region Power

System Improvement Project which is directly monitored by the Ministry of Power,

Government of India. This project is exclusively piloted by the Government of India, the

World Bank and Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited for the State of Tripura. But

Mr. Singh, learned counsel has denied the fact that the due process was not followed at

the time of construction.

7. Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 and 5

has contended that the land was identified and taken over by the aid of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District and due process of assessing the compensation

is on the verge of finalization. The moment the compensation would be determined the

petitioner will be informed for receiving the payment.

8. To this proposition, however, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel did not agree.

According to him, the process as laid down under Section 164 has been totally deviated or

breached both by the National Power Grid Corporation Limited and the Tripura State

Electricity Corporation Limited. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the

appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for placing of electric lines or electrical

plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of proper coordination etc., may

take over any line or advantages for purpose of transmission of power. For that purpose,

the power as given under India Telegraph Act, 1885 can be applied by the appropriate

Government. In the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 10 deals with the placing and

maintaining of the lines. Section 10(b) clearly provides that the appropriate government

shall not acquire any right other than that of user‟s right only in the property under, over,

along, across, in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post.

As such, acquisition of land as projected by the petitioner is improbable, however Section

10(d) provides that in exercise of the powers conferred by the said section, the telegraph

authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in

respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full

compensation to all persons interested for any damage, sustained by them by reason of

the exercise of those powers.

9. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.6, 7 and 8 has

categorically stated that the construction of tower or the pillar is over and the transmission

line has been laid and within a short while, the entire power system, as indicated before,

will be delicated to the beneficiaries. Mr. Singh, learned counsel has further submitted that

at this juncture removing of the structure, pillar etc is not called for in view of the

emergent provisions of law emanating from the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [see Section

10 of the said Act] as adopted by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

parties, this Court is of the view that the full compensation be made by the respondents to

the petitioner within eight weeks from today. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the

determination, he may approach the District Judge, Sepahijala. In this regard, a decision

of the apex Court in The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited versus Century

Textiles & Industries Limited and Ors. [judgment dated 14.12.2016 delivered in Civil

Appeal No.10951 of 2016] as relied by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the Power Grid

Corporation Limited may be referred. It has been observed in the said decision that if the

persons from whom the right to use has been acquired, feels aggrieved by the

determination of compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the

concerned District Judge for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out that the Central

Government has framed guidelines on 15.10.2015 in that behalf providing inter alia how

the determined quantum of compensation, including other associated facts, may be

resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as laid

down. In the guidelines, there are also remedies for the persons from whom the right to

use of land is taken.

11. Further directions are not called for. Hence, the respondents are directed to

determine the full compensation and make the payment within two months from today.

The petitioner shall be at liberty, if he is aggrieved by such determination to take out

further action in the manner as stated above, or in terms of the guidelines as referred

before.

Having observed thus, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as

indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties.

JUDGE Sabyasachi B