Chandrakiran And Another vs Power Gird Corporation Of India And Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for first respondent, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the Government of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the licensee-Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand, and with their consent the Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The appellants herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondents to assess the damage (present and future), and pay compensation, for the damage caused to the petitioners, in accordance with the rates fixed by the department; a writ of mandamus commanding/directing respondent Nos. 2 & 5 to take appropriate action against the responsible officer, and conduct an inquiry into the matter.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioners are farmers on whose agricultural lands overhead High Tension Electricity lines are proposed to be laid by the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd. The petitioners claim that a compromise was arrived at between GAIL and the affected farmers of Haridwar District, with respect to compensation for the damages caused to the land as well as the trees; despite representations being made to the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand, they are speedily constructing high tension electricity lines, while damaging valuable trees; and, since no compensation was paid to the petitioners, they were constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge referred to Sections 10(d) and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, and held that the appellant-writ petitioner had the remedy of approaching the District Judge, in whose jurisdiction the property is situated, for determination of adequate compensation; and the relief claimed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, for determination of adequate compensation, cannot be granted by the Writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it would require appreciation of evidence for determination of compensation. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the order passed therein would not preclude the petitioner from approaching the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act.

The learned Single Judge is justified in his conclusion that questions, relating to determination of compensation for damages caused as a result of laying overhead High Tension Electricity lines, necessitate appreciation of evidence which this Court would not, ordinarily, undertake in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the remedy available to the petitioner is not under the Indian Telegraph Act, but under the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 176 (2)(e) read with Section 67(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central Government made the Works Licensees Rules, 2006. While Rule 3(2) thereof does appear to confer power on the District Magistrate, or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorised, to fix compensation, it is wholly unnecessary for us to examine whether the 2006 Rules is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the order under appeal does not disable the appellant-writ petitioner from availing their legal remedies.

The learned Single Judge has merely held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked in such matters relating to a claim for compensation towards damages caused by laying High Tension Electricity lines over the appellant-writ petitioner's land. While the learned Single Judge has, no doubt, referred to Sections 10 (d) and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, and has observed that dismissal of the writ petition would not disable the petitioner from availing the remedy thereunder, that does not mean that the order under appeal bars them from availing any other remedy available to them in law.

Without expressing any opinion, on whether or not the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 are applicable to the case on hand, suffice it to modify the order of the learned Single Judge, and hold that dismissal of the writ petition would not disable the appellant-writ petitioner from availing such other remedies as are available to them in law.

The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.