IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3086 of 2003 Sunil Kumar Singh son of late Devendra Prasad Singh, resident of village- Mallehpur Haveli, PS.- Mallehpur, Distt. Jamui, at present residing at 3, Galaxy-1 Apartments, New Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Patliputra at and Distt. Patna --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Through its controlling office at Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna. 2. The Senior Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Biharshariff, Distt. Nalanda. 3. The Collector, Jamui. --- Respondents. ----------- For petitioner: M/s Alok Kr. Sinha with Bhola Kumar, Advocates. For PGCIL : M/s S.D.Sanjay with Gopal Prasad Gupta, Advocates. For respondent no.1 & 3 : None. -------- 8/ 15-12-2010 Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 3. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court for grant of the following reliefs: A. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to vacate the raiyati land of the petitioner or may retain the same after paying damage and compensation of the same. B. For further directing the respondents to not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in question. C. For granting any other relief/s which your lordships deem fit and proper in the facts and 2 circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioner claims that he is the owner and title holder of a piece of land bearing Khata no. 70 appertaining to Plot No. 1581, area 1.60 acres situate at village- Koluha, Block- Barhat in the district of Jamui (hereinafter referred to as the land in question). The main grievance of the petitioner is that without acquiring the land in question by the respondents and even without obtaining his consent, the respondent- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to “PGCIL”) through its officials came over the land in question, belonging to the petitioner and erected an electrical transmission tower with four struts covering an area of 1230 sq. ft., i.e., 113 squire meter and caused a damage of the lands and crops standing thereon. According to the petitioner, the land in question is a homestead and costly land of the area and petitioner wanted to construct a residential house over the same, but because of erection of the aforesaid electrical transmission tower, he is not in a position to construct his residential house and has suffered a substantial loss regarding the utility of the entire area of land in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under section 12(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) the 3 respondent PGCIL was obliged to take consent of the petitioner for erecting such electrical transmission tower and in case of refusal by the petitioner, an order was required to be obtained from the District Magistrate of the area, and that having not been done, the entire action of the respondent- PGCIL is wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it is relevant to quote section 12(2) of the aforesaid Act. Section 12(2) of the Act, is reproduced herein below: “12(2) : Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorize or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the [owner or occupier] concerned, as the case may be, lay down or place any electric supply- line, or other work in, through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee: PROVIDED that any support of an [overhead] or any stay or strut required for the sold purpose or securing in position any support of an [overhead line] may be fixed on any building or land or, having been so fixed, may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town [***], the Commissioner of policy by order in writing so 4 directs: PROVIDED also, that, if at any time the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town [***], the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.” 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- PGCIL submits that in view of the provisions contained in section 42 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the PGCIL and its officials were entitled to go over the piece of land belonging to the petitioner and were entitled to erect the electrical transmission tower even without obtaining consent from him. It is admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 that electrical transmission tower was erected over the land in question belonging to the petitioner, but according to him only small portion, i.e.,16 sq. ft. has been used by the PGCIL for the foundational work for erecting such tower. 6. Though there is a dispute between the parties about the area of land used by the respondent PGCIL for erecting aforesaid tower, but it is common case of the parties that in the circumstances set forth above, the respondent District Magistrate, Jamui is the competent 5 authority to decide the entire dispute including the question of compensation. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the District Magistrate and the amount of compensation has also not been fixed by the statutory body. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that entire matter must be examined by the respondent no.3- District Magistrate- cum- Collector, Jamui, who shall take into consideration the area used by respondent no.2 for the purpose of erection of electrical transmission tower and would be obliged to fix the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation along with a certified copy of this order and should appear before respondent no.3, District Magistrate, within a period of one month from today. On receipt of such representation, the District Magistrate shall get an enquiry done regarding use of the area of the land belonging to the petitioner and will fix the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner by respondent no.2. Entire exercise must be completed by respondent- District Magistrate, Jamui, within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. Before taking final decision, the respondent- District Magistrate shall be obliged to given an opportunity of hearing to both the 6 parties. It is further made clear that if the petitioner does not appear before the respondent no.3- District Magistrate along with the certified copy of this order within the time prescribed by this Court, then it would be construed that the present writ petition has stood rejected by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)