Between :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9310 of 2014 Date: 29.04.2014 N.Umapathi Reddy s/o. late V.R.Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 52 years, occu: Agriculture, r/o.Velkuru Village and Post, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.
And Power Grid Corporation of India, D.No.6-6-8/32, …. Petitioner 395e, Old Praga Tools Premises, Kavadiguda Main Road, Secunderabad, rep.by its Authorization Officer.
… Respondent This Court made the following :
ORDER:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9310 of 2014 With the consent of both the counsels, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The Power Grid Corporation of India (respondent) was entrusted with the responsibility of construction of 765 KV Double Circuit Electrical line from Kurnool (AP) to Tiruvelam in the State of Tamilnadu. This line passes through Velukuru Village & Post, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittor District. The power vested in the respondent corporation is in accordance with the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Electricity Act, 2003 to lay the transmission towers and lines and to use the right of way for this purpose.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.3.93 cents in Survey Nos.373/2, 375/2, 349/2B and 373/1 of Velukuru Village & Post, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittor District. The petitioner avers that he raised 4 coconut trees and 5 well grown neem trees in the above survey numbers. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent corporation is trying to lay high voltage electric transmission line through his property, without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without determining compensation payable in advance as per Section 68(6) of the Electricity Act.
4. The petitioner was served notice dated 12.08.2013 on behalf of the respondent-corporation informing the petitioner that a double circuit transmission line would pass through the petitioner property which may cause damage to the standing crop and tress within the right of way and are required to be cut. The petitioner was informed that reasonable compensation for the crops damaged and tress cut would be paid as per the assessment of the Revenue/Horticulture/ Forest Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The notice indicates that the area of crop damaged would be 35x35 meters. The crop damaged indicated was groundnut.
5. Heard Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation.
6. Learned counsel Sri P.R.Prasad contends that erection of transmission tower and laying of transmission line is illegal as the procedure as mandated by the Land Acquisition Act (repealed Act) and the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Act 2013) is not followed and, therefore, the respondent corporation is not entitled to enter into the land of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that as held by Supreme Court in KAPUR SINGH MISTRI V s . FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND REVENUE SECRETARY, THE
[1]
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB to claim for compensation should be on yield basis, even when loss is sustained for laying electrical lines. The said principle is reiterated time and again. He further contends that he cannot utilize his land for proper cultivation and value of the property diminished. He further contends that there are trees existing, whereas notice indicated the existence of groundnut crop only, but the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation for the trees that come in the way of laying cables. Learned counsel submits that compensation offered was only Rs.12,104/- which is very meagre.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation by placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent corporation submits that the corporation vested with the power to lay transmission line and it has the right of way and the owner of the land is entitled to receive compensation only to the extent of utilization of land for the purpose of erection of tower and no compensation is payable on the land below the electrical lines. However, while laying electrical lines, if any tree is going to be damaged or coming in the way, those trees have to be cut and compensation as determined by the competent authority would be paid to those trees. The assessment of damage for this purpose would be done after laying the cable. Thus, in so far as the utilization of land is concerned, the petitioner was already paid Rs.12,104/- at the time of laying foundation. Further amount of Rs.11,070/- was assessed towards damage, which amount was refused by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 68(6) of Electricity Act 2003, the determination of compensation would arise after laying the cable and the compensation would be paid to the extent of damage caused to the standing crop as well as to the trees if they are coming in the way and required to be cut and if the petitioner has valid claim that the 5 neem trees and 4 coconut trees are proposed for cutting which are falling in line of the cable, the compensation as assessed by the competent authority would be paid.
8. The provisions of repealed Land Acquisition Act and the Act 30 of 2013 have no application in so far as laying electric towers and electric lines are concerned and they are governed by Electricity Act, 2003 read with Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Right of way is vested with the competent authority to lay electric towers and cables. The authority is entitled to serve notice on the land owner and required to pay compensation to the extent of utilization of land for laying the tower. Thus, the land owner is not entitled to claim compensation for the entire extent of land, but he is entitled to claim compensation to the extent of land utilized for laying the tower. Insofar as the cables passing through the land, no compensation is payable. However, during the laying of the tower and cable, if any damage is caused to the existing crops or trees, the land owner is entitled to receive compensation to that extent. Similarly, if the trees are coming in the way of cables, those trees would be cut and accordingly, compensation would be paid. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to receive compensation by applying the provisions of the repealed Land Acquisition Act and the Act 30 of 2013, for the entire land, through which the cables are passing, is not valid. Insofar as his claim that there are trees and that he is entitled to receive compensation for said trees, it is categorical assertion of the respondent that he would pay compensation if damage is caused to the standing crops and trees as determined by the competent authority.
9. In view of the said assertion of the respondent in the counter affidavit, the interest of the petitioner is sufficiently protected. However, the respondent is directed to assess any damage to the standing crop and trees as claimed by the petitioner and pay compensation as payable to the petitioner within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of completion of laying the cables. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the amount quantified, he is entitled to avail remedies as available in law.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 29.04.2014 Ska/kkm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.9310 of 2014 Date: 29.04.2014 ska/kkm
[1] 1995 (suppl) (2) SCC 635