Niranjan Bhar and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC13 Aug 2025FMA/370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court FMA 370 of 2025, decided August 13, 2025; compensation for high tension electricity transmission line drawn over private land (6 decimal plot) without tower erection; deviation from original plan/Mouza map; entitlement to compensation under Section 164 Electricity Act 2003 and Section 10 Indian Telegraph Act 1885; District Magistrate order August 21, 2024; WBSETCL Transmission Company; Single Judge order January 14, 2025 in WP.P.A. 23456 of 2024; proof of damage; appeal disposed of, no infirmity found.

What did the court decide?

None; the Court found no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's order and disposed of the appeal and the connected application, leaving intact the direction that the appellants may produce proof of damage for computation of compensation by the Transmission Company. ¶¶35-36

Niranjan Bhar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶35-36

Issue for consideration

Whether a person whose land is crossed by a high tension line (with no tower erected on the land) suffers damage entitling him to compensation from the Transmission or Electricity Company under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

Under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a person who suffers any damage by reason of the erection of a high tension line is entitled to compensation from the Transmission or the Electricity Company involved.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

From the records, the Transmission Company undertook a project of erecting towers to set up a high tension line; one of the plots involved belonged to the appellants; the high tension line went over the land belonging to the appellants, but no tower was erected on the appellants' land.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, both the District Magistrate and the learned Single Judge had directed computation of the compensation, if any, receivable by the appellants; the Division Bench found no infirmity in the decision of the learned Single Judge.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench appeal (Debangsu Basak, J.; Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J. concurring) against order dated January 14, 2025 in WP.P.A. 23456 of 2024 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of landowners (appellants owned 6 decimal of land) seeking redress for a high tension transmission line drawn over their plot, allegedly in deviation from the original plan, without any tower being erected on the plot. Held: under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, a person suffering damage by reason of the erection of a high tension line is entitled to compensation from the Transmission or Electricity Company involved; both the District Magistrate (order dated August 21, 2024) and the learned Single Judge had directed computation of the compensation receivable by the appellants; no infirmity was found in the learned Single Judge's decision. F.M.A. 370 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 were disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present:

¶3

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

¶4

And

¶5

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

¶6

F.M.A. 370 of 2025

¶7

Niranjan Bhar & Anr.

¶8

vs.

¶9

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶10

With

¶11

CAN 1 of 2025

¶12

For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv., Mr. Panchanan Hajra Mr. Amrit Sinha Mr. Aniruddha Tewari For the WBSETCL : Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja Mr. Sumit Roy For the State : Mr. K.J. Yusuf, Ld. A.G.P., Ms. Munmun Ganguly Heard & Judgment on : August 13, 2025

¶13

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

¶14

Appeal is directed against an order dated January 14, 2025 passed in

¶15

WP.P.A. 23456 of 2024.

¶16

Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioners.

¶17

¶18

By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by permitting the appellants to produce proof of damage, if any sustained by the appellants due to drawing of the high tension line over his plot of land.

¶19

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants owned 6 decimal of land. High tension line was taken over the plot belonging to the appellants by the Transmission Company. He submits that the high tension line was drawn in deviation by the original plan.

¶20

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the deviation was made in order to give an advantage to a liquor shop located at an adjacent plot of land. He submits that by reason of the high tension line, appellants are not in a position to utilize the plot of land for further development. Appellants will not be in a position to change the nature and character of the land also.

¶21

Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the order of the District Magistrate dated August 21, 2024 and submits that the District Magistrate was of the view that the Transmission Company should determine the compensation and disburse the same to the appellants for any damage sustained by them by reason of

¶22

¶23

exercise of authority conferred upon the Transmission Company under

¶24

Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶25

Learned senior advocate appearing for the Transmission Company produces the Mouza map and other details that we directed by our order dated August 7, 2025. He submits that no tower was erected on the land belonging to the appellants. He submits that the deviation from the original plan was necessitated due to the change in the ground realities from the date of the detailed project report.

¶26

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits a report of the District Magistrate which be taken on record.

¶27

We find from the records that Transmission Company undertook a project of erecting towers to set up high tension line to transmit electricity. One of the plots involved belong to the appellants. High tension line went over the land belonging to the appellants. However, no tower was erected on the land belonging to the appellants.

¶28

Under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, if any person suffers any damages by reason of the erection of high tension of line, then such person is entitled to compensation from the

¶29

Transmission or the Electricity Company involved. In the facts and

¶30

¶31

circumstances of the present case, both the District Magistrate as also the

¶32

learned Single Judge by their respective orders directed computation of

¶33

the compensation, if any, receivable by the appellants.

¶34