NEPAL CHANDRA PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that he has purchased a plot of land in mouza and tehsil Dhanpur, holding Nos. 152 and 173 which was a part of the formerly Khatian No. 21, CS plot No. 184 measuring O.57 acres over the said plot of land, 132 KV high tension electric wire has been drawn without the consent of the petitioner. As a result, he has been prevented from raising any construction on the said plot of land and planting any tree under the said electric wire and also within 20 ft. each side of the said electric line. He filed an application dated 21-9-98 to the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, requesting him to direct the Department of Power, Government of Tripura, to make payment of compensation to him for drawing high tension electric wire over the said plot of land. When no orders were passed on the said application of the petitioner, he filed a representation before the Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Department of Power, on 4-1-99. When no orders were communicated to him by the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Power, on the said representation of the petitioner, the petitioner moved this Court in WP (C) No. 72/99 and by order dated 19-2-99, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Power, to dispose of the said representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Power, disposed of the said representation of the petitioner by order dated 26-7-99. The said order dated 26-7-99 was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 4-8-99 of the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura. By the said order dated 26-7-99, the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, has held that the compensation of Rs. 2000/- as assessed by the Department was commensurate with the damage caused to the trees on the land of the petitioner which were cut and fell at the time of drawing 66 KV extra high voltage transmission line over the land of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and has made a prayer before this Court to direct the respondents either to make payment of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner as compensation for drawing high tension electricity wire over his land or to refer the dispute to arbitration as provided under S. 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, within stipulated time.

(2.) When the case was taken up for hearing at the stage of admission, Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since a difference or dispute has arisen as to the quantum of compensation between the petitioner and the respondents, a direction can be given by this Court to the respondents to refer the said dispute or difference to the statutory arbitration under Ss. 19 and 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 within stipulated time.

(3.) Mr. U. B. Saha, Sr. GA, Tripura, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had in fact approached the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, under S. 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, (for short "the Act") for compensation as would be clear from Annexure-C to the writ petition, and when the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, did not pass any order on the said claim of the petitioner for compensation, he filed a representation under S. 12(4) of the Act before the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, and this Court in WP(C) 72/99 in fact directed the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. According to Mr. Saha, therefore, this is a case which falls under sub-sections (3) and (4) of S. 12 of the Act and the bare language of sub-sec. (2) of S. 19 of the Act would show that the cases falling under S. 12(3) are not to be referred to arbitration. Mr. Saha vehemently argued that in fact by the earlier order passed by this Court on 19-2-99 in WP (C) No. 72/99, this Court had directed the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to compensation under S. 12 of the Act.