HONOURABLE MR v. DILIP SINGH CHAUHAN & 7

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Date : 18/07/2012 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)

1. All these appeals are admitted. Mr.Hasit Dave waives service so far as Letters Patent Appeal No.844 of 2012 is concerned, Mr.Hasurkar waives service so far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.842 and 843 of 2012 are concerned and Mr.Mehta waives service LPA/844/2012 JUDGMENT so far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.903 and 904 of 2012 are concerned.

2. Since the point involved in these appeals being common, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, all these appeals are taken up for final hearing today itself.

3. So far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.844, 903 and 904 of 2012 are concerned, the same are filed by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, which according to Mr.Hasurkar is now known as Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Limited. So far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.842 and 843 of 2012 are concerned, the same are filed by some of the owners of the lands who are represented by learned advocate Mr.Gaurav Mehta.

4. Challenge in the appeals filed by the Gujarat Energy Transmission Company Limited (hereinafter referred as “electricity company”) is in connection with the order of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge while referring the writ petitions to the Larger Bench has continued the order of status quo till the Larger Bench decides the issues referred by the learned Single Judge before the Larger Bench. So far as Letters Patent Appeal Nos.842 and 843 of 2012 are concerned, the same are preferred by the individual land owners on the ground that the learned Single Judge has erred in not granting the interim relief in their favour. The electricity company wanted to erect transmission towers and the same were required to be erected in the lands of the individual LPA/844/2012 JUDGMENT land owners. The land owners filed respective petitions before the learned Single Judge challenging the action of the electricity company on the ground that without giving hearing to the concerned land owners and without fixing appropriate compensation, it is not open for the electricity company to install such transmission towers in the part of their lands as it may hamper agricultural activities. On behalf of the electricity company, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Himmatbhai Vallabhbhai Patel Vs. Chief Engineer (Project), Gujarat Energy Transmission and others, reported in 2011 (2) GLH 781. Relying on the said judgment, it is argued by Mr.Hasurkar that the learned Single Judge was bound by the said judgment and even if the learned Single Judge ultimately decided to refer the issue to the Larger Bench, at least, there was no question of extending status quo as till the judgment of the Division Bench which is binding to the learned Single Judge is over-ruled in a given case by the Larger Bench, the law declared by the Division Bench is binding to the learned Single Judge and there was no question of granting any status quo order.

5. Learned advocates for both the sides have argued the matter on the question of granting or vacating the status quo at some length. However, during the course of hearing since consensus is prevailing between both the sides, it is not necessary to deal with the arguments in detail. In view of consensus prevailing between both the sides, we modify LPA/844/2012 JUDGMENT the order of the learned Single Judge by passing the following order.

6. The electricity company may approach the concerned Magistrate under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 in case the action proposed by the electricity company is resisted by the concerned land owners and if the concerned land owners are not cooperating in the matter of handing over the possession of the lands for the purpose of allowing the electricity company to erect transmission towers. If any appropriate application is preferred, concerned Magistrate, after hearing the objections, if any, of the land owners may decide the application immediately without undue delay after hearing the concerned persons in order to comply with the principles of natural justice and the electricity company may accordingly proceed further on the basis of the order that may be passed by the Magistrate in this behalf as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. In case, any party has any grievance in connection with the order passed by the Magistrate, it is open for such party to take further recourse against the said order in accordance with law. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly substituted by the aforesaid order. It is clarified that this order is passed only in connection with granting of interim relief and the order of the learned Single Judge is considered to the aforesaid extent of granting interim relief. This Court has not examined the aspect as to whether reference could have been made to the Larger Bench or not as that point has not been pressed into LPA/844/2012 JUDGMENT service by Mr.Hasurkar in these appeals. It is further clarified that we have not examined in detail the grievance made by Mr.Hasurkar regarding granting of status quo as ultimately this order is passed in view of consensus prevailing between both the sides. It is needless to say that the electricity company may now proceed further regarding taking further steps in respect of erection of electricity transmission towers, as stated above, by making appropriate application to the concerned Magistrate and to act on the basis of the order passed by the concerned Magistrate.

7. Subject to what is stated above, all the appeals are disposed of. The order of status quo granted by the learned Single Judge is modified to the aforesaid extent and is substituted by the present order.

8. In view of the above, Civil Applications do not survive and the same are disposed of as not survived. pathan (P.B.Majmudar,J) (Mohinder Pal,J)