1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2136/2011 (Arvind V. Pandhare & another VERSUS District Magistrate, Chandrapur & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.P. Palshikar, counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, A.G.P. for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MAY 2 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the District Magistrate, Chandrapur on 18.04.2011, so far as it directs the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (M.S.E.T.C.L.) to pay the compensation for the damage sustained by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the land of the petitioners was used for erecting of towers and laying of power line and, hence, the petitioners were entitled to damage. The petitioners are not aggrieved with the order allowing the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (M.S.E.T.C.L.) to carry out the work of erecting towers and directing the petitioners not to obstruct the work of erection of towers and laying supply lines in their field. According to the petitioners, the District Magistrate, Chandrapur ought to have directed the Karnataka EMTA Coal Mines Limited, the respondent no.2 to this petition, to pay the 2 compensation for damage. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (M.S.E.T.C.L.) ought not have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation for the damage. This petition is not tenable at the behest of the petitioners as the District Magistrate, Chandrapur has directed the respondent no.3 to pay compensation for damage to the petitioners. The respondent no.3, it appears, is not aggrieved by the order dated 18.04.2011 directing the respondent no.3 to pay compensation for damage to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners should not bother from where they receive the compensation as the same is made payable to them by the impugned order dated 18.04.2011. The grievance of the petitioners that the respondent no.3 should not pay the compensation to the petitioners and the respondent no.2 shall pay the same to the petitioners, cannot be redressed by this Court. This Court may have entertained a petition filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (M.S.E.T.C.L.) against the order dated 18.04.2011 directing the respondent no.3-Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (M.S.E.T.C.L.) to pay compensation to the petitioners, in case it was pointed out that the liability is not of the respondent no.3 but, is of the respondent no.2. Since the petitioners are being paid the compensation, they should not bother whether it comes from ‘A’ person or ‘B’ person as per the order passed by the District Magistrate, Chandrapur. 3 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE