IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQNJiIQ^ 33} OF 2006 % PETITIQNERS -./'"I .^^y" ^:%s^-"""" ^^"" •y- fr/"" !t?%< %s^^-^. ^.f '^/ ^' ^-- ^ /l.M/s Krishna Pields Investors Pvt. Ltd., a company duly registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1952, having its registered office at "Krishna Kunj", Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur through the General Manager, Shri P.K. Sharma, son of Late Ramadhar Sharma, aged about 48 years, resident of Samta Colony, Raipur. ^•2. Shri P.K. Sharma, son of Late Ramadhar Sharma, aged about 45 years, General Manager, M/s Krishna Fields Investors Pvt. Ltd., "Krishna Kunj", Main Road, Samta Colony, Raipur. vs RESPONDENTS / 1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, through the Chief Engineer, Extra High Tension Department, C.S.E.B., Danganiya, Raipur. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, z '2_ through the District Magistrate / Collector, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLES 226 SB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS /CERTIORARI ETCOR DIRECTION(S) / ORDER(S) IN THELIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 931 of 2006 Petitioner M/s Krishna Fields Investors Pvt. Ltd. and auofher Versus Respondents Chhattisgarh State Electricity Boanl and aaother Sia^le Beach : Hon'blc Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri. Shri B. P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A. S. Gahanvar, Advocate for fhe Respondent No. 1. Shri Sunil Otwani, Panel lawyer for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (llthMay,2006) The followuig order of the Court was passed by Satish K. A^iihotri, J. 1. By the piesent petition the petitioners seek to chaUenge the action of fhe respondents hi erecting potes for high tension electric liues over fhe laiid of the petitioners without affording any opportuiiity of hearing. 2. The retum has been filed by the respondent No, 1. 3. L-earaed couiisel for the respondent No.l subinits that in view ofthe observations inade by fhis Court ui fhe oi-der dated 30. 1.2006 passed in W.P.No. 454/2006, there is no question of affordmg auy opportunity of hearing to the petitionei-s. The order dated 30.1.2006 reads as uilder:- The petitioner, who is the owner of fhe subject land, being aggrieved by ttle action of fhe tlurd respoudent-Boand in drawin^ high tension electric liiie across the subject land and icfasal ofthe secoad respondent to accede to fhe request of tfae petitioner that high tension electlic line shouU be drawn across fhe comer oftitie subject land, has filed this writ petition seeking intervention of fhe ...t-.i--'?-..^^^^--^-!"^®'^?-;^!^?.?^^^'- a Court. The power of the third icspondeat-Boanl to draw the high- tension electiic Une across the land oftfae petitioner under section 10 of the Telegiaphic Act could not be questioned. Hearing of the owner ofthe property is not conteinplated. The only right available to the owner of fhe propert)'' is to seek coinpensatiou. In fhat view of fhe matter, I dismiss fhe writ petitioa. It is now open to the petitioaer to make appropriate appUcation before the District Magistrate for detei-mination of the coinpensation to be paid in respect of the land of the petitioaer used by the ttiird respondent- Board aad if such an dppUcation is inade, it is hoped fhat fhe District Magistoate,shall consider the saine and pass appropriate orderwith proniptitude. No costs," 4. Leamed counsel for fhe respondeut No. 1 furfher subinits that fhe claiin of the petitioners would be only to fhe extent of compensation for acqiiisition of the land for the purpose of erccting high tension electric liaes tower. 5. Lcamed counsel for fhe petitioners subinits that due to erection ofthe high tensiou electric lines tower, fhe entire land of the petitioners has becoine useless for any piirpose ofthe petitioners. 6. Having heard leanied counsel for the parties and haviug i-egard to fhe facts aad circuiastaiices of the case the petition is disposed of ia terms of ttie order dated 30.1.2006 passed in W. P. No. 454/2006. However, Uberty is reserved to the petitioners to inakp appropriate representation ia regard to grant of compeusation for the adjacent laad which inay becoiae, accorcling to fhe leamd counsel for the petitioners, iiseless after acquisition ofthe piece ofland for erection of lugh tension electric lines tower in question. On such representation being naade, fhe concemed aufhority shall decide fhe saiae, in accordaace with law. No order as to costs. Certified copy, as per Rules. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotti Judge