IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14173 of 2010 1. DHRUV PRASAD S/O LATE NARAYAN SAH R/O VILL.- CHAILAHA TAL, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 2. JAHAN ARA W/O SALIM MOHAMMAD JAN R/O VILL.- CHAILAHA TAL, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 3. MD. SHAKIL SIDDIQUI S/O LATE HAJI S.K. MD. JAN R/O VILL.- CHAILAHA TAL, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 4. TABISH MOHAMMAD JAN S/O LATE MD. JAMAL SIDDIQUI R/O VILL.- CHAILAHA TAL, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 5. SHRAVAN PRASAD S/O GANGA PRASAD R/O VILL.- CHAILAHA TAL, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 6. DOMAN MIAN S/O LATE SULTAN MIAN R/O VILL.- CHAILAHA TAL, P.S.- BANJARIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN ………. Petitioners Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) MOTIHARI HEADQUARTER, AT & P.O.- MOTIHARI 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY) MOTIHARI HEADQUARTER, AT & P.O.- MOTIHARI ……………. Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, A.C. to AAG-III For B.S.E.B. : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. ----------- 6 14.12.2010 By order dated 30.8.2010, the Collector of the district was incorporated as party respondent and was directed to make spot inquiry and find out the actual state of affairs and file a counter affidavit. No such counter affidavit has been filed. There is, however, a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (for short the Board). Petitioners raise a grievance that the respondent Board has carried out construction of Electric Power Tower for transmission of high tension line on their lands without their consent and without payment of adequate compensation for the acquisition/use of the land and the consequential damage of crop(s). 2 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board stating therein that on the request of M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (a Government of India enterprises), the Board had taken up work for laying of 132 KVA transmission line for specific purpose of evacuation of surplus co- generated power from Sugauli Sugal Mill which was found essential and in the interest of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the provisions contained in Rule (3) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 framed under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent District Magistrate was first required to permit such construction in case objection is raised by the land owner like the petitioners and in the event of works already carried out by the State, adequate compensation is required to be fixed. It is the stand of the respondents including the State that petitioners should have approached the District Magistrate raising the said grievance which could have been disposed of in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules noticed above. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ application be treated as a representation/objection of the petitioners and the same should be disposed of in accordance with law as provided under Rule 3 of the said Rules. Rule 3 runs as under: ―3. Licensee to carry out works—(1) A licensee may – (a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply line or other works in, through, or against, any building,, 3 or on, over or under any land whereon, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or works has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of the owner or occupier of any building or land; (b) fix any support of overhead line or any stay or strut required for the purpose of securing in position any support of any overhead line on any building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support; Provided that in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying out the works; Provided further that if at any time, the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any works have been carried out or any support of an overhead line, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, or the officer authorised may by order in writing direct for any such works, support, stay or strut to be removed or altered. (2) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the officer so authorised, as the case may be, shall fix, after considering the representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both, which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. (3) Every order made by a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police or an authorised officer under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Appropriate Commission. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the powers conferred under any licensee under Section 164 of the Act.‖ It is seen therefrom that in case of any objection raised by the land holders like the petitioners against carrying /laying out such works and fixtures thereto, an order is required to be obtained by the 4 District Magistrate on any objection. It further appears that if the work and necessary fixtures in connection therewith have already been carried out on the land or building, the owner thereof on showing sufficient cause will be entitled to receive adequate amount of compensation or of annual rent or of both which is/are deemed fit and proper by the said authority (District Magistrate). In that view of the matter, with the consent of the parties, this application is being disposed of by the following order: Let the respondent District Magistrate consider the present writ petition as the objection/representation filed on behalf of the writ petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with the Act and the Rules within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order before the said authority. The respondent District Magistrate shall be at liberty to call upon the petitioners to produce any document/evidence as deem necessary for disposal of the application. Petitioners are directed to produce copy of the present order along with a copy of the writ petition as also copy of the counter affidavit of the respondent Board before the said authority within five weeks from today. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )