THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOS.30825 AND 30830 OF 2013 Dated : 16.06.2014 WRIT PETITION No.30825 of 2013 Between:
T.Bhulakshmi, W/o T.Subramanyam Naidu, 65 yrs., Cultivation, R/o Peddakalva Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.
.. Petitioner And Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Government of India Enterprises, New Delhi, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others .. Respondents WRIT PETITION No.30830 of 2013 C.Jayadeva Naidu, S/o C.Bhuloka Naidu, 62 yrs., Cultivation, R/o Peddakalva Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.
.. Petitioner And Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Government of India Enterprises, New Delhi, Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NOS.30825 AND 30830 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER :
These writ petitions are instituted aggrieved by the issuance of notices by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (1st respondent) to erect towers in agricultural lands and to lay electric transmission lines on the properties owned by the petitioners.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.30825 of 2013 owns land to an extent of Acs.2.55 cents in Survey No.129-2 and Ac.1.62 cents in Survey No.131/2 of Velkuru Revenue Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District, whereas, the petitioner in W.P.No.30830 of 2013 owns land to an extent of Ac.0.46 cents, Ac.0.27 cents and Ac.0.10 cents in Survey Nos.111, 110 and 133/2 of Peddakalva Village, Velkuru Revenue Village, G.D. Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District.
3. The Government of India in exercise of powers vested under Section 68 of the Electricity Act (for short ‘the Act’) has given approval on 12.07.2012 for strengthening power transmission in the Southern Region Nos.18 and 19. Southern Region No.19 falls between Kurnool in State of Andhra Pradesh and Tiruvalem. Section 164 of the Act empowers the Government concerned to pass order in writing for the placing of electric lines or electrical plant for the transmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communications necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any public officer, licensee or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under this Act, subject to such conditions and restrictions, if any, as the Appropriate Government may think fit to impose and in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885).
4. In exercise of the powers vested in the respondent Corporation, notice was issued to the petitioners informing them that the transmission lines as proposed are passing through their lands. They were also informed that if any trees or standing crop gets damaged in the process of laying transmission lines and towers, appropriate compensation as determined by the revenue authority would be paid. The petitioners objected for laying of transmission lines through their lands filed before the 1st respondent Corporation. As no response was given to the petitioners, this writ petition is instituted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that unless the mandate of Land Acquisition Act (Repealed)/Act 30 of 2013 is followed, the private land cannot be acquired even for the purpose of laying electric transmission lines. He further contends that even though the transmission lines pass through from a very far height from the ground level, there will be damage to the crops, trees and the value of the property also gets diminished. He further contends that since the lands in question are located very nearer to Chittoor town and as there is future potential of development to real estate, if the transmission lines pass through the said land, the said land cannot be developed for real estate. It is further contended that no compensation is paid to the petitioners for the loss of trees.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that in exercise of powers vested by the Electricity Act r/w Telegraph Act as authorised by the Government of India, steps are taken to erect electric towers and laying of cables do not damage the lands in question. However, while laying of cables, if there is any damage to the standing crop or trees, to that extent, compensation would be paid. Furthermore, it is also submitted that if there is any necessity of cutting the existing trees, compensation would be determined and paid accordingly. He further submits that no electric tower is coming up on the lines of the petitioners and only cable is passing through their lands and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to receive compensation for land. Learned counsel placed reliance on
[1]
the decision of this Court in DEVISETTI RAMA SWAMI V. CHIEF ENGINEER
7. The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Act 30 of 2013 have no application in so far as laying of electric towers and electric cables and they are governed by the Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Indian Telegraph Act. A right of way is vested in the respondent corporation to lay electricity towers and cables. The authority is entitled to serve notice on the land owner and required to pay compensation to the extent of utilisation 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 utilised for laying the tower. Insofar as the cables passing through the land, no compensation is payable. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel, during the laying of the tower and cables, 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 compensation would be paid.
8. On consideration of similar contentions, this Court in Devisetti’s case (supra) held as under :-
“On the above analysis, this Court finds that there is no provision in the Act of 1885 which mandates prior notice or an opportunity of hearing to be provided to the owner/occupier of a premises affected by the laying of lines or posts and therefore, there is no question of such owner/occupier being put on notice or demanding an opportunity of hearing before the grounding of the scheme. Section 17 postulates that such a right would arise only after laying of the lines or posts and upon the failure of the authority concerned to act upon a requisition to remove or relocate such lines or posts etc.
Insofar as Section 164 of the Act of 2003 is concerned, the judgments of this Court i n G.V.S.RAMA KRISHNA V. A.P.TRANSCO REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDYUTH SOUDHA reported in 2009(3) ALD 343 and K.SUBBA RAJU V. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TLC DIVISION, A.P. TRANSCO, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT reported in
2010(4) ALD 358 put it beyond doubt that while exercising powers thereunder, the APTRANSCO would not be required to either initiate acquisition of land or obtain consent from the owner. It was also held that in such a situation, Section 67 of the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2006 framed thereunder would have no application. This Court respectfully agrees.”
9. In W.P.No.9310 of 2014 similar contentions were raised. The same were considered and rejected in the judgment rendered on 29.04.2014.
10. In view of the principle laid down by this Court in the above decision and the statutory provisions which apply to the laying of electric towers and cables, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire land should be acquired and full compensation be paid has no merit.
11. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the loss of trees or any other standing crop and they are entitled to receive compensation to the extent if land is utilised for the purpose of laying towers.
12. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
Date : 16.06.2014 ssp JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
[1]
2013(4) ALD 88