SUBHASH CHAND BATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, especially respondent No. 3 not to erect high power tension line tower in the land/premises belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he owns agricultural land comprising in Rect. No. 62 Khasra No. 10/1 and 10/2 in village Badshahpur Tehsil and District Gurgaon. At the relevant time, crops were standing on the land. He is a resident of Delhi and has agricultural land in village Badshahpur. The scheme for installation of transmission line from village Badshahpur to Jaipur by-pass Sector 10 Gurgaon was originally sanctioned by respondents and the said transmission line was passing over the premises of Golf Country Club, Sohana Road, Gurgaon. The respondents, at the instance of Golf Club prepared alternative route of the transmission line without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 28 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and also Indian Telegraph Act, 1955. The alteration of the route plan was challenged in this Court by one Tahar Singh vide Civil Writ Petition No. 16104 of 1998. This petition was admitted on 14.10.1998. While issuing notice of motion, respondents were directed not to lay the electricity cable in accordance with the impugned plan. Thereafter, one Vijay Singh filed CWP No. 684 of 1999 which was allowed by this Court by order dated 8.4.2000. The respondents were directed not to erect the high power tension line in the agricultural land near the residential house of Vijay Singh, the petitioner therein. It was, however, clarified that the petition has been allowed on the ground that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act with regard to the revised scheme. The respondents were granted the liberty either to arrive at settlement by negotiations with petitioner or issue a modified scheme after following the procedure prescribed under Sections 28 and 29 of the Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that in gross violation of the order passed by this Court, respondents again proceeded to erect transmission line over the land of the petitioner (Vijay Singh) in CWP No. 684 of 1999. He was, therefore, constrained to file another writ petition, namely, CWP No. 1938 of 2001. It was contended that the modified scheme as published under Section 29(2) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 did not contain the khasra number of the land belonging to the petitioner therein, and therefore, no objections could be filed. On 12.2.2001 a Division Bench of this Court issued Notice of Motion for 10.5.2001. It was also directed that meanwhile, digging operation on the land of the petitioner therein will remain stayed. Now the petitioner, who lives in Delhi, has been informed by his farm attendants that respondents are prepared to dig in his fields for erection of the towers for the electricity supply line. The petitioner all along entertained the belief that laying of electrical cable has been stayed by this Court by various orders appended with the writ petition. He, therefore, made enquiries and came to know that respondents had published a notification in a daily newspaper on 11.4.2001 wherein the land of the petitioner is also included in the proposed modified scheme for laying the electricity cable. Since the petitioner does not permanently reside in the village, he did not come to know about preparation and the publication of the modified scheme. Not knowing about the publication of the modified scheme, he has not filed any objections thereto. Therefore, the petitioner has even lost the right to file objections in terms of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is further pleaded that as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, even the revised scheme cannot be executed without the approval of the Central Electricity Authority whereas the respondents have not obtained such approval from the authority as mentioned in Section 29 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the notification itself shows that the same has not been sanctioned as it is mentioned in the scheme that it shall be deemed to be sanctioned with or without modification by the Central Electricity Authority. According to the learned counsel, it was mandatory and obligatory for the respondents to obtain the sanction of the authority and only thereafter the same can be executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the petitioner had been given the opportunity to submit the objections, he would have shown the respondents that the initial unrevised plan of the transmission line was 2.455 kms. in length whereas the revised plan would have a longer route of 2.815 kms. involving greater expenditure.

(3.) IT was further submitted by Mr. Gill that the decision in CWP No. 684 of 1999 is of no assistance to the petitioner as the High Court had allowed the same on the ground that there was non-compliance with Sections 28 and 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. With regard to writ petition, namely, CWP No. 1938 of 2001, it is submitted by Mr. Gill that after the decision in CWP No. 684 of 99, Vijay Singh had actually entered into a settlement with the respondents. It was, on the basis of this settlement that the respondents had started the digging work. The settlement had, however, remained only oral as Vijay Singh did not sing the same. Taking advantage of this Vijay Singh filed writ petition, namely, CWP No. 1938 of 2001 and got the order of stay. The notification dated 31.10.2000 which is the subject matter of the CWP No. 1938 of 2001, stands duty cancelled and is not being acted upon. The present notification which was issued on 10.4.2001, has been sanctioned in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.