LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-100

MURU MEGHRAJ SEDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On November 28, 2014
Muru Meghraj Seda Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Udit D. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.S.P. Hasurkar, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.4.

(2.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers;

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, that facts of the case are that the petitioners are agriculturists, owning agricultural land bearing old Survey No.74 admeasuring approximately Hectare 90043, situated at village Gelda, Taluka Mundra, District Kutch. The petitioners are also rearing livestock on their land. It is the case of petitioners that their sole source of income is from agriculture and their livestock. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent no.4 The Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO), is laying a 400 KV Double Circuit Mundra Zerda No.1., Package 1 line, which passes over the agricultural land of the petitioners. The petitioners are further aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.10.2014, passed by the District Collector / District Magistrate, Kutch Bhuj (respondent no.2), whereby, the said respondent has accepted the application under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 made by GETCO. The case of the petitioners is that the erection of the 'High Tension 400 KV Double Transmission Electricity Lines' by respondent No.4 is arbitrarily routed, without any justification, with a diversion, in a zigzag manner. A huge diversion is made in a manner so that a large part of agricultural land of the petitioners can be utilized for transmission, whereas, the said transmission line could have been established in a straightline. According to the petitioners, as a huge area of their land would be utilized for the construction of tower, their only source of income would be destroyed. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.4 GETCO, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition.