SOMJI KARAMSINH PATEL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KUTCHH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the petitioner, Mr.Siraj Gori for the respondent NO.2 and Mr.Kanva Antani, learned AGP for respondent No.1. The prayers in the petition, read as under: "8 (A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, permanently restraining the respondents from installing electric poles and laying high tension transmission lines from the land bearing Survey No. 291 of village Devpar, Taluka Nakhatrana and be further pleased to direct the respondents to remove the part construction of the electric poles already installed over the said agricultural land. (B) In the alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to erect the electricity poles and high tension transmission lines from the nearby Kharaba land of the government and to follow the principles of "least damage" and to pay appropriate compensation before entering into and installing the high tension transmission line, if at all it is required."

(2.) The facts in brief are as under:

(3.) Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondent No.2 - K P Energy Ltd., has not obtained any permission under sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, r/w Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Inviting the attention of the court to the provisions of sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Mr. Shah, learned advocate, submitted that nothing on record is produced to show permissions obtained under the provisions of Telegraph Act also. Referring to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.2, and the communications annexed to the reply, Mr. Shah, learned advocate would contend that the communications dated 01.10.2019 annexed to the affidavit in reply would in no manner suggest that these are requisite permissions under sections 67 and 68 of the Electricity Act r/w section 164 thereof, and therefore, the act of the respondent No.2 in entering upon the land to install towers or tension lines is contrary to law. That no prior consent has been obtained from the owners of the lands in question. Inviting the attention of the Court to the communications annexed to the reply addressed by the Dy. Collector and the Sub Divisional Magistrate inviting the petitioners for a meeting on 24/03/2020 and 22/06/2020, Mr Shah, learned advocate would submit that these are not proceedings to be recognised as permissions under section 16 of the Telegraph Act, and therefore, the act of the respondent No.2 is without any authority of law, and therefore, the same must be set aside. 3.1 Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, would also submit that details have been given in the rejoinder, wherein, it is categorically pointed out that for a land which was barren and for which the measure was 54 metres, the respondent company has paid compensation of Rs.85 lakhs, and therefore, that compensation paid to one Jadeja Bairajba for installation of high tension lines of Rs.85 lakhs shows that the offer to pay Rs.33 lacs for 153 metres of land of the petitioners is a complete eyewash. It is, therefore, in this context that the petition has been filed.