BHARATBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Saket A. Waghela for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Ronak Raval for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr.S.P. Hasurkar for respondent No.3.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioners has referred the averments made in the memo of the petition and, thereafter, contended that the petitioners are owners of the agricultural lands situated at Villages Padamla, Sokhda and Asoj, details of which, are given in Paragraph-4.1 of the petition. It is submitted that officer of respondent No.3, without conducting any proper inquiry, highhandedly entered into the land of the petitioners on 30/31.07.2020. The petitioners were informed that respondent No.3 is proposing to lay down a 765 KV D/c overhead high-tension lines from their lands. It is submitted that when the petitioners resisted said unreasonable action of the officer of respondent No.3, he had given threats to the petitioners. The petitioners issued Notices dated 17.08.2020 and 19.08.2020 through their Advocate to respondent No.3 and thereby the petitioners have objected to the action of the Officer of respondent No.3. At this stage, learned advocate has also referred to the reply dated 26.08.2020 given by respondent No.3, a copy of which is placed on record at page-62 of the compilation. It is further submitted that because of the laying down of the transmission line in question, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss. It is also contended that request was made to the respondents to change the route of the said transmission line. However, no response is given by respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also made a representation for grant of compensation. However, respondent No.3 has not awarded any compensation to the petitioners. At this stage, learned advocate has referred the chart for tentative compensation amount which was given by respondent No.3 to the petitioners, copies of which are placed on record at Pages-105 and 106 of the compilation. After referring to the same, it is contended that respondent No.3 has offered very meager amount of compensation and, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to respondent No.3 to grant compensation to the petitioners.