KALPANA RUKHABDAS JAIN Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In first writ petition the petitioner-land owner has questioned the order dated 25/1/1994 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous civil Application No. 540/1992 upholding preliminary objection raised by respondents that the application moved by petitioner under section 16 sub-section (3) of Indian Telegraph act, 1885 is not maintainable. The said proceedings were filed by present petitioner for recovery of compensation on account of removal of trees/cutting trees in the field property belonging to petitioner by respondents for the purposes of or to erect the overhead wires/lines. In the second writ petition the respondent in first writ petition namely Maharashtra State Electricity Board has questioned the order dated 23-5-1996 passed in M. C. A. No. 2/1995 by the District magistrate, Nagpur. By the said order District magistrate, Nagpur has permitted petitioner to remove the trees as contemplated under section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, but while so doing has directed the petitioner to uproot and remove the stumps of trees and to level the land within a period of one month, so as to enable the land holder to undertake agricultural operations before the onset of mansoon. The subject-matter of both writ petitions is same and the parties are also same.

(2.) I have heard Advocate Shri S. M. Puranik for landholder in both the matters', advocate Shri G. E. Moharir for Maharash tra State Electricity Board in both the matters, and learned A. G. P. for respondent No. 1 in W. P. No. 1966/1977.

(3.) The facts in brief are as under :-The Maharashtra State Electricity board on 26-10-1989 issued notice under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to land holder and informed her that 220 K. B. Khaparkheda Bhandara Line is to be laid which would pass through her field and for that purpose trees standing in her land would be required to be cut or removed. She was informed that the trees so cut or removed can be returned to her with understanding that she would not claim any compensation for that or the trees would be sold in auction. Loss caused to her was to be compensated as per value thereof arrived at either by revenue department or by Maharashtra electricity Board. In the notice the trees which were to be removed are also specified. It appears that on 7-12-1989 the petitioner has replied to this notice and has given the height of trees standing in her land and also approximate cost of each tree. There was some correspondence between the parties and on 7-6-1991 the land owner has served a legal notice upon Maharashtra State Electricity board. It also appears that she also submitted the Form No. III along with panchanama as required by the Maharashtra State electricity Board on 28-6-1991. In this background, it appears that though the land owner was insisting that the amount of compensation should be determined first before taking any action for cutting of trees, the trees were cut on 17-7-1992 with the help of police. Hence, in view of this action the land owner lodged police complaint on 18-7-1992 and thereafter issued registered notice on 30-7-1992. Ultimately on 18-9-1992 the land owner approached District Judge, nagpur vide Civil Application No. 540/1992 under section 16 sub-section (3) of Indian telegraph Act, 1885 for determining the compensation payable by Board to her. The application was opposed by Board by raising preliminary objection in relation to payment of Court fee under Bombay Court Fees Act and also about maintainability of application under section 16, as according to Board action taken was not under section 10 (d) of Indian Telegraph Act, but the action was under section 18 thereof.