Mahesh Chandra vs District Magistrate And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2524 UK

 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3280 of 2016

Mahesh Chandra                                         ...Applicant

                               Versus

District Magistrate and others                      ...Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, assisted by
             Ms. Nidhi Thapa, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Brief Holder for the State.
             Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondent
             nos. 2 and 3.

                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of Mandamus commanding the

respondents to pay damages towards use

and occupation of petitioner's land,

towards value of the trees which have been

uprooted while laying down line and

erecting tower as also suitable damages for

the loss of the petitioner has suffered due

to corridor restriction as mentioned above.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction

which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

(iii) Award cost of the petition."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that he was

informed by the respondent no.2 General Manager, Power

Grid Corporation India Ltd. ("Corporation") that a electric

line is to be drawn through his property for which purpose

652 eucalyptus trees were to be cut. The petitioner was

told that he would be compensated for the same. The trees

were cut, but the petitioner was not paid the compensation

despite repeated requests. When the respondents tried to

erect the towers and raise the line, the petitioner objected

to it. But, with the help of police personnel, the line was

raised and tower erected. Hence, the petition for claiming

compensation of trees, those were uprooted in the process.

4. On behalf of the respondent no.2 the

Corporation, counter affidavit is filed. It is argued that the

force was never applied for laying the lines. It all was done

with the consent of the petitioner. There is no poll or

permanent fixture raised in the field of the petitioner, only

power line passed through the property of the petitioner. It

is further the case of the respondent no.2 the Corporation

that the compensation amounting to Rs.2,67,165/- had

already been assessed. But, the petitioner is not providing

his bank details so that the money may be transmitted in

his account.

5. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the

State. According to it, in the property in question, there

were no trees. In fact, it has not been the case of the

respondent no.2 the Corporation. According to the

respondent no.2 the Corporation, compensation for trees is

to be paid to the petitioner, which has already been

assessed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that the power line has been laid

forcibly. In such situation, the matter should be

reconsidered by the District Magistrate, in view of the

Judgment of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 71 of

2015, Smt. Shashi Sharma and others Vs. Power Grid

Corporation of India Ltd.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for the respondent no.2 the Corporation would submit that

the facts of the case in the case of Smt. Shashi Sharma

(supra) were quite distinct. In that case, the electric line

had not been laid. Therefore, keeping in view of the

provision of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885

("the Act") directions were issued for consideration of the

matter by the District Magistrate. Whereas, it is argued

that in the instance case, the electric line had already been

raised, compensation has been assessed and cheque is

ready, which the petitioner is not taking. Learned counsel

would submit that if the petitioner is not happy with the

amount of compensation that is being paid to him, he may

very well raise the issue before the District Judge, in view

of Section 16 (3) of the Act.

8. In the case of Smt. Shashi Sharma objection

was raised for illegally and forcibly erecting towers for

laying transmission line on the field of the petitioner of

that case. Under those circumstances, the Court had

directed the District Magistrate to look into the affairs in

view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.

9. Admittedly, in the instant case, the power line

had already been laid. Though, the petitioner has stated

that it was forcibly erected or laid. Whereas, according to

the respondent no.2 the Corporation, the petitioner

consented for laying of the transmission line. This is not

now an issue before the Court.

10. The stage of Section 16 sub Section (1) of the

Act had already been over in the instant case. The

compensation, according to the respondent no.2 the

Corporation, had already been calculated which the

petitioner is not receiving.

11. What is being argued on behalf of the

respondent no.2 the Corporation is that the petitioner is at

liberty to approach the court of District Judge, under

Section 16 (3) of the Act.

12. Section 16 (3) of the Act reads as follows:-

"16. Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority.-

(1).........................................................................

(2)......................................................................

(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause

(d), it shall, on application for the purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him."

13. Since the transmission line had already been

laid and compensation had already been assessed, now if

the petitioner raises concern with regard to the sufficiency

of the compensation amount that is being offered to him,

he may very well approach the District Judge in view of

Section 16 (3) of the Act.

14. Accordingly, there is no reason to make any

interference with the petition. It stands disposed of with

the above observation.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.08.2023 Jitendra