CWP No.4966 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4966 of 2009 Date of decision: March 30, 2009. Parveen Kumari ...Petitioner(s) v. Powergrid Corporation of India (North Region) ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.B. Sarot, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent – Powergrid Corporation of India not to instal Towers bearing No.64/6, 64/7 and 64/8 to lay high-tension transmission wires in an unauthorized manner, contrary to the original plan said to have been approved by the Government of India. As per the petitioner's case, the Central Govt. vide its notification dated 27.11.2003 has notified the respondent-Corporation as a central transmission utility under Section 14 of the Electricity Act. Moga to Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) transmission line was approved by the Government of India on 6.10.2005 under the Northern Regional System Strengthening Scheme (NRSSS-V) on the basis of a survey conducted and the guidelines CWP No.4966 of 2009 -: 2 :- laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The NRSSS-V was approved by the Government of India on 9.6.2006 and pursuant thereto, the final scheme was notified on 23.4.2007 (Annexure P-5). The notification also specifies the villages of various States, including the villages of District Hissar (Haryana) through which the transmission lines were to be laid. The notification includes village Daulatpur, District Hissar where the petitioner is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 12 acres. The petitioner's case is that as per the plan originally approved by Government of India, none of the towers including bearing No.64/6, 64/7 and 64/8 were to be installed in her agricultural land. However, the authorities of the respondent Corporation, allegedly in connivance with the neighboring land owners including the petitioner's own brothers, has changed the alignment of the proposed transmission line in such a manner that the wires crossing through the said towers will now pass overhead the land of the petitioner. In support of this contention, site-plan Annexure P- 12 has also been appended. The petitioner's further grievance is that as soon as she came to know about the unauthorized change in the alignment, she made a complaint-cum-representation dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P-8), followed by reminder dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P-9), however, no cognizance thereof has been taken by the respondent-authorities. On the other hand, the respondent- authorities have started the installation of towers and the petitioner apprehends that the wires can be laid on any day overhead her agricultural land. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and taking into consideration the nature of relief sought by her and the fact that she has CWP No.4966 of 2009 -: 3 :- already approached the respondent-authorities but they have not responded so far, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the General Manager (Northern Region) of the respondent – Corporation to take cognizance of the petitioner's complaint referred to above and dispose of the same strictly keeping in view the plan approved by the Government of India/competent authority and, if so required, to take necessary steps to ensure that the site plan is not tinkered with/frustrated by the executing authorities. However, if the competent authority is of the view that no modification in the plan is required in public interest and such a modification/deviation is likely to affect the petitioner's fields, in that event the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard before deciding her complaint. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till a decision on the petitioner's complaint is taken, the transmission lines shall not be laid overhead the agricultural land of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that the construction of the towers or laying of the overhead wires, till the petitioner's complaint, if any, is decided, shall be on the risk and peril of the authorities and shall cause no prejudice to the petitioner. Dasti. March 30, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge