High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 WP-4197-19-J.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.4197 OF 2019Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.(A Government of India Enterprise)Through its Deputy General Manager,Having its local office at1200/765/400/220 KV Sub Station,Chittepimpalgaon, NH-211,Aurangabad – Beed Highway,Aurangbad, District Aurangabad..PetitionerVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Principal Secretary,Industries, Energy and LabourDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai -322.The Collector, Jalna,Jalna, District Jalna3.The Committee for Determinationof Compensation for Fruit bearing TreesAnd Other TreesThrough Sub Divisional MagistrateJalna, District Jalna4.Badrinath Maroti Pathade,Age 68 years, Occu. Agriculture,R/o. Dudhanawadi, Taluka Badnapur,District Jalna..RespondentsMr. Girish S. Rane, Advocate for Petitioner;Ms. R. R. Tandale, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3;Mr. Pavan P. Uttarwar, Advocate for Respondent No.4CORAM :S. G. MEHARE, J.Reserved on : 21-02-2024Pronounced on : 15-04-2024 2 WP-4197-19-J.odtJUDGMENT :-1. The petitioner, who is admittedly deemed licensee underSection 38 of the Electricity Act, 2003, has impugned the judgmentand order of respondent No.2, dated 10.10.2017 and the judgmentand order dated 31.08.2017 (to be read as 31.08.2017 in view ofcorrigendum dated 24.09.2018) by respondent No.3.2.The undisputed facts of the case were that the petitioner isthe Central Transmission Utility (CTU) of India and a companyestablished and set up by the Government of India incorporatedunder the provisions of the Companies Act. The petitioner hadassigned the work of laying the transmission line. Due to thelaying of the transmission line, the fields and the fruit-bearingtrees in the fields of respondent No.4 were affected. The notice, asrequired under the provisions of law, was served to respondentNo.4 on 27.12.2014. As per the petitioner’s case, 84 sweet limetrees were to be affected. Therefore, a compensation certificatewas accordingly issued. Respondent No.4 also signed thecertificate dated 24.02.2015. It was assured to pay thecompensation after cutting the trees. The District AgriculturalSuperintendent determined the valuation of the trees. He valuedthe trees, and the compensation for Rs. Rs.31,32,764/-. Thecompensation of Rs.36,00,621/- was paid to respondent No.4 andhis sons. It was accepted without any demur. However, respondent 3 WP-4197-19-J.odtNo.4 applied to respondent No.1 and disputed the number of treesaffected due to laying the transmission line. It was alleged againstthe petitioner that he did not make the payment as promised ,andthe watering of the trees was also affected. In short, he disputedthe compensation.3.The petitioner raised the objection that remedy against dis-satisfaction of the compensation is under Section 16(3) of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885. Respondents No.1 and 3 have nojurisdiction to entertain the petition. The disputes about thecompensation granted as the jurisdiction lies in the District Court.However, finally, respondent No.3 / the Committee constituted asper the Government resolution, dated 02.11.2022, passed theimpugned order without considering the jurisdiction objection.4.Respondent No.2/ the Collector, by its order dated15.01.2016, had determined the compensation. Against the saidorder, respondent No.4 has preferred a petition (Case No.77 of2016) before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission.The said Commission, in its order dated 09.11.2016 observed thatrespondent No.2/the Collector, Jalna, failed to quantify the amountof compensation to be paid, and the order states that thepetitioner may approach the District Court under Section 16(3) ofthe Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885, if aggrieved by the compensationto be paid by the petitioner. Finally, the Commission directed the 4 WP-4197-19-J.odtDistrict Collector, Jalna, to decide the amount of compensationafter considering the submissions of both parties under theprovisions of Works of License Rules, 2006, read with Section 67 ofthe Electricity Act, 2003. However, the adjudication or revision ofthis order if sought, would lie with Central Electricity RegulatoryCommission (CERC) and not to this Commission. Thereafter, theCommittee decided the matter on merit on 31.08.2017.Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred to review the applicationbefore the Committee.5.The Government, by circular dated 25.08.2015, directed theCollectors to constitute the District Level Committees fordetermining the compensation. Thereafter, a Governmentresolution dated 31.05.2017 was issued with guidelines forcompensation for the damages caused while erecting thetransmission tower or the lands below the transmission linecorridor. The said G.R. also prescribes for the constitution of theCommittees under the Presidency of the Sub Divisional Magistrate.The petitioner contended that the said G.R. was restricted tocompensation for the lands occupied by the towers and below thetransmission lines only. In view of the Government resolution dated31.05.2017 by order dated 10.10.2017, the Collector directed theCommittee/respondent No.3 to determine the compensation.6. The application of the petitioner raising objection as to 5 WP-4197-19-J.odtjurisdiction and rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 ofthe Civil Procedure Code, was declined. 7.The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitionerbased on the various judgments of this Court were that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no power to determine the compensation. Ifrespondent No.4 was dissatisfied with the compensation grantedto him, the jurisdiction lies with the District Judge under Section16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act.8.To bolster his arguments, he relied on the number of casesfrom 2017 to 2021. In most of the cases, the petitioner was aparty. He submits that the petition deserves to be allowed on thesole ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no inherentjurisdiction to pass the compensation.9.The learned counsel for respondent No.4 vehemently arguedthat Section 185 of the Electricity Act 2003, has repealed theIndian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity RegulatoryCommission Act, 1998. Therefore, Section 16(4) of the IndianTelegraphic Act would come into the way. Section 67 of theElectricity Act, 2003 speaks of ‘Works of licensee’. Sub-section (2)thereof provides that the appropriate Government may, by rulesmade by it in this behalf, specify the cases and circumstances inwhich the consent in writing of the appropriate Government, localauthority, owner or occupier, as the case may be, shall be required 6 WP-4197-19-J.odtfor carrying out works including many other rules that bind thelicensee to follow. Sub-section (3) provides that the licensee shallcause little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be andshall make full compensation for any damage, detriment orinconvenience caused by him or anyone employed. These rulespertain to the notice and the responsibility of the licensee to paythe compensation. He had vehemently argued that in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 67, the matters of dispute or differences,including the amount of compensation, shall be determined by theappropriate Commission.10.Rule 13 of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006, determinesand compensates affected persons. The said Rule specificallyprovides that where the licensee makes a default in complyingwith any of the provisions of Rules, he shall make fullcompensation for any loss or damage incurred by reason thereofto the person affected, as may be determined by the DistrictMagistrate or any other officer authorized by State Government ifnot agreed mutually between the parties. If any difference ordispute arises as to the compensation under Sub-section (1), thematter shall be determined by the appropriate Commission. By aGovernment resolution dated 31.05.2017, the Committee wasconstituted. and confered the powers to determine thecompensation if there are differences. Hence, the Committee hasjurisdiction to determine the compensation. Section 174 of the 7 WP-4197-19-J.odtElectricity Act, 2003 provides for an overriding effect of the Act. Hefurther argued that Section 111 of the Electricity Act, 2003,provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the orderled by the appropriate Commission under this Act. He prayed todismiss the petition as a statutory remedy is available to thepetitioner to prefer the appeal.11.Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the followingcases and many more cases.12. In all the above petitions, a similar issue was dealt withabout the jurisdiction of the District Court. The law has beencrystallized, The Hon’ble Division Bench held that the claim of thefarmers in such cases and disputes raised by them will have to beconsidered by the District Judge. The objections raised by therespondent about the constitution of the Committee and theprovisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, were the same when thisCourt took the view that the District Judge shall deal with a disputeabout the compensation under Section 16(2) of the IndianTelegraph Act. In view of the matter and the consistent view of thehigher benches, this Court, Court does not find any reason to takeanother view. There is no substance in the objections raised by therespondent. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The impugnedjudgment and order of respondent No.2, dated 10.10.2017 and thejudgment and order dated 31.08.2017 (to be read as 31.08.2017 in
Decision
8 WP-4197-19-J.odtview of corrigendum dated 24.09.2018) by respondent No.3, standquashed and set aside.13.Respondent is free to prefer the petition disputing thecompensation before the concerned District Judge. 14.No order as to costs. ( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGErrd