Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61022 of 2012 Petitioner :- Smt. Kusum Devi Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kalp Nath Bind,Krishna Nand Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Jyotsna Srivastava,S.C.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this matter.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has made the following prayer in this petition:
"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to fix the poles and not to lay over the head High Power Electric Lines from the residential plot of the petiitioner
ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court finds fits and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case so that justice be ensured.
iii. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner and against the respondent."
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.2 and the following statement was made by the respondent no.2 in para 7, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"That the contents of the paragraph no.8 of the writ petition is wrong hence denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that during construction of 765 K.V. Sasaram-Fatehpur transmission line (Location No.91/0) through agriculture land of the petitioner situated at (Khasra no.255 and 256) a notice was issued in the name of the petitioner as well as her son namely Dileep Kumar Yadav regarding to damage of crops and same was received by them. It is further submitted that of after completion of work damage of the crops was assessed by the revenue authority and thereafter compensation were given to the petitioner and her son Dileep Kumar Yada and amont of compensation of Rs.23717/- (Cheque no.010370 dated 15.3.2013) and Rs.26320/- (Cheque no.006390 dated 19.2.2013) was given to the petitioner and two cheques nos.010371 dated 15.3.2013 (amount Rs.25471/-) and 006391 dated 19.2.2001 (amount Rs.24192/-) was received by her son Dileep Kumar Yadav. Hence there is no grievance of the petitioner remains."
In reply to the contents of para 7 of the counter affidavit a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and reply is given in para 8 which reads as hereunder:
"That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the Counter affidavit is incorrectly stated hence denied. In reply it is submitted that the petitioner was objecting against the power corporation since 12.11.2010 and moving series of representation before the authorities and upto filing of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court nothing could be done."
The petitioner has, therefore, not denied that she has accepted the compensation for the damage to the crop that was made at the time when the transmission lines were erected.
In view of the acceptance of the compensation of the petitioner, no further relief can be given to the petitioner in this petition. This writ petition has become virtually infructuous. In case the petitioner has any other grievance, it is open to him to pursue it in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 pks