WPMS/912/2024
2024 Latest Caselaw 709 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/912/2024 on 15 April, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No. 912 of 2024
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

(1) Mr. Kailash Chandra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2) Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

(3) Ms. Sudha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

(4) Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

(5) Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for respondent no. 6.

(6) Petitioner is a resident of Village Kheri Mubarikpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, who is recorded as co-tenure holder of land comprised in Khata No. 128, Gata No. 21/36H in the said village. According to him, Uttarakhand Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. is proposing to lay High Tension Transmission Line (132K.V.) through his agricultural field.

(7) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, orders or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing respondent, not to install or lay down the open 132KV electric line through the field/agricultural land of the petitioner i.e. plot khasra no. 128 Gata No. 21/36H Village Kheri Mubarikpur Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar (Annexure No. 3 and 4) (8) According to petitioner, laying of High Tension Transmission Line through the agricultural field will impair the value of his property and he would not be able to use the property to its full potential.

(9) Learned counsel for the respondent-

UPCL, however, submits that State Government has granted approval under Section 68 of Electricity Act, 2003, on 26.08.2015; thus he submits that there is nothing wrong in laying of High Tension Line. He further submits that under Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, framed by Central Government, there is a provision for compensation to persons whose property is affected by laying of High Tension Line. He thus submits that if petitioner has any grievance, he can approach the Competent Authority under the said Rules for compensation.

(10) Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 has also referred to judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 568 of 2019 for contending that writ petition would not be maintainable for the cause espoused in the writ petition.

(11) Since petitioner has remedy under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 framed under Electricity Act, 2003, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

(12 Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under the aforesaid Rule.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 15.04.2024 Aswal