Land owner's nod not needed for projects of public interest: HC
Raipur: Chhattisgarh high court has ruled that a landowner's consent is not required for installation of electricity transmission lines, reiterating that such infrastructure projects serve a larger public interest and landowners are entitled only to compensation and cannot seek an injunction to halt the project.
The bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that while Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (CSPTCL) is required to inform the petitioner before entering his land, prior consent is not mandated by Electricity Act, 2003, or Telegraph Act, 1885. It said CSPTCL would not claim ownership of the land where the tower is situated.
Justice Prasad ordered CSPTCL and other respondents to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner, a 94-year-old farmer.
He owns over 8.7 acres of farmland in Korbi village in Baloda tehsil of Janjgir-Champa district. He alleged that CSPTCL had dug 16 large pits and begun construction of transmission towers on his land without notice, consent, or compliance with mandatory conditions of the approval order dated March 11, 2024, issued by state govt.
The Petitioner's Side
The petitioner sought a court direction to immediately stop the construction work, arguing that the permission granted by Chhattisgarh govt had become void due to non-compliance with its conditions by CSPTCL.
He also sought restoration of his land to its original condition, removal of erected structures, and exemplary damages for mental harassment.
The petitioner submitted that over 4.8 acres (55.7%) of his land had been "illegally encroached upon and disturbed" as 16 pits were dug initially, followed by eight more on March 8, 2025, despite statutory requirements mandating prior identification of affected land in the landowner's presence, payment of compensation, and formal permission from the competent authority upon objection.
The petitioner had raised objections through a legal notice dated Dec 31, 2024, which he said were disregarded by the authorities.
He alleged that 'arbitrary compensation notices' were issued without site inspection or his presence, and no compensation was provided for Khasra Nos. 730/5 and 658/8.
The State's Side
Counsel for the respondents argued that the claim of sanction order being cancelled due to non-compliance was baseless.
They said compensation had been duly calculated and offered to the petitioner on June 24, 2024, and Jan 22, 2025, but he refused to accept it. They emphasised that under the law, consent from landowner is not a requisite for erecting transmission lines, as it is a project of national importance.
The respondents' counsel cited a previous HC order, which, in similar circumstances and for the same project, granted landowners liberty to raise grievances before appropriate forums.
They also highlighted a govt notification of Dec 13, 2006, which authorises CSPTCL officers to act as 'telegraph authority' for laying electricity transmission lines.
Court Cites SC Rulings
In its order, HC referenced Supreme Court rulings, which underscore the necessity of unobstructed access for laying electricity transmission lines in larger public interest for national development. The court noted that Chhattisgarh serves as a power hub, and electricity generation and supply from the state are of paramount importance. The bench asked the petitioner not to obstruct construction of electricity transmission towers, and directed authorities to disburse the compensation within 60 days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
MSEDCL issues two notices to PMC regarding unauthorised electricity usage and unpaid bill
Pune: MSEDCL has sent PMC two separate notices for Rs 4.14 lakh for unauthorized electricity usage at two establishments. The civic body operates a gymnasium within the premises of Lokmanya Nagar Garden and Chandrakant Botre gymnasium and Madhukar Budhkar study centre within the premises of Dharmaveer Sambhaji Maharaj Primary School, the power company stated in the notice issued to the executive engineer of PMC. The school is located on Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS) Road and the garden is situated in the Lokmanya Nagar society in Navi Peth. These two gymnasiums and the study centre are currently operational. The garden has unpaid dues of Rs 1.81 lakh and the school has not paid an electricity bill of up to Rs 2.33 lakh. MSEDCL has issued two separate notices to PMC under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. "The two establishments used an existing connection for pole light to power appliances within the premises. So this constitutes unauthorised use. It was not adhering to the purpose for which the connection was given and does not qualify as theft, which is why notices were issued under section 126 and not under section 135, which constitutes theft," an MSEDCL spokesperson said. MSEDCL has provided a regular timeframe to the corporation to repay the dues as per the norms and PMC has intimated its intent to pay the bill, he added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Typically, consumers can pay their bills in 21 working days after the due date, following which there is a 15-day notice period given to the consumers. The electricity bills of the two entities have left unpaid for almost a year since June 2024, an MSEDCL spokesperson said. The gymnasium and the study centre located in the school premises consumed 5,701 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, while the gymnasium in the garden consumed 6,368 kWh of electricity. The gymnasium in the garden had installed two bulbs, 16 tube lights, seven ceiling fans and one exhaust fan, while the gymnasium and study centre in the school installed 43 tube lights, 16 fans, one television screen, four CCTV cameras and one treadmill, as per the notice. "MSEDCL sought an explanation from the PMC representatives running the garden and the school regarding the duration for which the gymnasiums and the study centre are operational. Since the power company did not receive any clear timeframe at the time of issuing the notice, it has sought payment of dues along with a penalty," stated the notice issued to the executive engineer of PMC. Akshay Jain, president of the media department of Maharashtra Pradesh Youth Congress, raised the issue with MSEDCL to take action against PMC. "Even if PMC repays the dues, public money is wasted through improper management leading to penalties," he said.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
4 months on, still no aid given to Kumbh stampede victim's family: Court raps UP
A two-judge vacation bench of the Allahabad High Court has come down on the Uttar Pradesh government over a delay in disbursing ex-gratia compensation to the families of those who died in a stampede at the Maha Kumbh in Prayagraj on January a petition filed by one Uday Pratap Singh, a bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Sandeep Jain said once the government had announced compensation, it was its "bounden duty" to ensure timely and dignified court also expressed concerns over the body of a stampede victim being handed over to her family without any autopsy or postmortem conducted in a state-run medical college. "It is alarming that the state authorities appear to have handed over the body of the wife of the petitioner to his son on February 5, 2025. Four months have passed and no part of the ex-gratia compensation announced by the state has been offered to the petitioner," the court chief standing counsel submitted that since the petitioner has not raised that claim, the stage has not arrived for it to be court said, "Prima facie, we find the stand taken to be untenable and smacking of apathy to the plight of the citizen. It was the bounden duty of the State to pay compensation to the aggrieved families with the utmost grace and dignity."advertisement"Once the identity of the family of the deceased was known to the state, it appears to be a pretence and an excuse on part of the state to ask the aggrieved family who had come from far-off places to beg for money from the state for the irreversible loss suffered by the petitioner, certainly not on account of any fault committed by the deceased," the court added."The state remains the trustee of its citizens. It is not only obligated to protect their lives and keep them safe from avoidable losses, it remains obligated and duty-bound to offer remedies and care where such unintended loss may be suffered. It is undisputed that the management of the Kumbh Mela was in the hands of the state and no other authority," the bench its order passed on Friday, the court directed the state authorities to file an affidavit disclosing full details of the total number of claims received for the payment of ex-gratia compensation; the number of claims decided and pending, together with the dates of receipt of such claims with minimal details of the claimants as also the date of their court directed for the impleadment of multiple medical institutions and authorities in Prayagraj as parties to the petition and asked them to file affidavits disclosing all deaths and the details of the medical handling of victims between January 28 and the conclusion of the Maha to the facts of the case, the petitioner's wife was injured in the stampede and was initially believed to be missing. Later, her body was handed over to her son from the mortuary of the Motilal Nehru Medical College in Prayagraj on February inquest report and the post-mortem or autopsy report were not prepared at that stage. Since the petitioner is a resident of Karaunda in Bihar's Kaimur (Bhabhua) district, he took his wife's body to his home district, where the inquest and autopsy reports were court fixed July 18 as the next date of hearing in the InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Uttar Pradesh#Maha Kumbh
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court declines to quash case against KIADB officer caught while returning alleged bribe amount
The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash a corruption case against an officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), who was caught in a 'reverse-trap' case when he was returning the alleged bribe money of ₹3 lakh in cash to the complainant. 'In a reverse trap scenario, the public servant allegedly returns money previously received as illegal gratification. These facts, when projected before the court, require a complex evidentiary matrix. The issues that arise in cases of reverse trap are distinct from a traditional trap. The central twist in a reverse trap would be as to why the public servant returns the money,' the court said. The court said the case requires investigation to demonstrate the innocence of a public servant, as the matter is still at the stage of investigation, to clear obfuscation about whether the bribe was ever demanded or accepted in the first place. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by A.B. Vijaya Kumar, who was working as Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)-2 at KIADB, Bengaluru, during September 2022. The complainant, B.S. Arun, had alleged that he had sought a no-objection certificate from the KIADB for construction related to a temple at Laggere in Bengaluru. Though the petitioner-SLAO had demanded ₹4 lakh bribe and received ₹2.5 lakh through another person from his office for issuing the NoC, the document was not issued despite repeated requests. Hence, Mr. Arun had lodged a complaint with the Special Deputy Commissioner of the KIADB alleging that the petitioner was not issuing the NoC despite receiving the bribe. Following this complaint, the petitioner issued the NoC and is said to have offered to return the bribe amount as a donation to the temple with a request to Mr. Arun to withdraw the complaint made to the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Lokayukta police, acting on the complaint by Mr. Aurn, caught the petitioner red-handed when he was returning ₹3 lakh to the complainant. But it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint could not have been registered as there was no material for demand and acceptance besides there being mismatch of ₹50,000 between the alleged bribe amount received and returned. However, the court declined to interfere in the investigation, stating that the probe is essential to find out whether the bribe was in fact demanded and accepted as per the law.
