Remanded

Meena Lalthanzuali and 58 Ors. v. The General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Sept 2022WP(C)/20/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged dismissal of claim for compensation regarding land used for HV transmission towers. Court held case covered by prior coordinate bench order, remanding matter to Fast Track Court for reconsideration as expeditiously as possible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; parties directed to appear before Fast Track Court, Kolasib on 13.09.2022 for trial.

Meena Lalthanzuali and 58 Ors. Vs The General Manager Power… — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030000932021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/20/2021

¶5

Meena Lalthanzuali and 58 Ors. THINGDAWL, KOLASIB DISTRICT 2: LALKIM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and 4 Ors REGIONAL HEAD QUARTERS, SHILLONG 2:THE CHIEF MANAGER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. Linda L Fambawl (Addl.AG/GA, Mizoram) for R3-R5

¶10

ORDER

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶12

06.09.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the petitioners who

¶14

submits that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have constructed high voltage electrical towers, Transmission lines and approach roads within the land of the petitioners

¶15

during the year 2013 to 2018 for the purpose of installing 400 KV DC Transmission line

¶16

from Silchar, Assam to Melriat, Mizoram, without paying adequate and full

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

compensation to the petitioners. The said construction not only cause damage to their lands and crops but also have affected their lands since they have been permanently utilized by the respondent concerned. The learned counsel submits that for the said construction, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have only paid compensation to the petitioners towards crops damage and not for the land. Referring to the Guidelines dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure - XI) issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Power and also the Notification dated 01.05.2019 issued by the Govt. of Mizoram in the Power & Electricity Department in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power dated 15.10.2015, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to full and adequate compensation, including compensation towards their respective lands, utilized by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶19

[2.] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners were not given such compensation, the petitioners filed an application before the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib claiming adequate compensation as per the Guidelines & Notification issued by the Ministry of Power and the State Government as well. The application was registered as Application No. 1/2018. Consequently, after pleadings were exchanged, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court vide order dated 05.12.2019 dismissed the claim of the petitioners. He submits that before passing of the said order, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court had directed for spot verification. Although spot verification report was made ready before disposal of the claim application, the same was not considered by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court while

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

passing the impugned order dated 05.12.2019. He therefore submits that the petitioners having been deprived utilization of certain portion of their lands, they are liable to be compensated as permissible under the Guidelines.

¶22

[3.] Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case of similar nature wherein, the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court was put to challenge had disposed of the said writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 10/2021 by remanding the case back to the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib for reconsideration. He submits that since the present case is also similar in nature, a similar order may be passed.

¶23

[4.] Mr. Ali Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the reason why the learned Judge, Fast Track Court have rejected the claim of the petitioners by concluding the they are not covered by the State Government’s Notification dated 01.05.2019 is that the Notification was prospective in nature only and did not cover the case of the existing transmission lines already completed and in service. As the installation of the transmission lines was already completed over the land of the petitioners as on 01.05.2019, therefore, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court came to such conclusion. The learned counsel also submits that the land holdings of the petitioners are also not similar. Some of them possess Village Council Pass while some of them have Periodic Pattas and Land Settlement Certificates. Therefore, without considering such aspects, the petitioners cannot claim compensation for their respective land as a matter of right.

¶24

Page No.# 4/5

¶25

[5.] Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents also echoes to the submission of Mr. Ali Hussain and submits that the petitioners will have to show that they have the inheritable rights over their respective

¶26

land and unless the same is considered, the petitioners cannot simply claim compensation for their lands.

¶27

[6.] Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties, I am of the view that the case of the petitioners are covered by the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.09.2021 in WP(C) No. 10/2021 (Lalrodina Ralte & 29 Ors. -Vs- The General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India & 4 Ors.). Although Mr. Ali Hussain submits that Notification dated 01.05.2019 will not cover the case of the petitioners, but the fact remains that the said Notification has been issued pursuant to the Guidelines made by the Ministry of Power, Govt. of India on 15.10.2015. The installation of the high voltage electrical towers, Transmission lines and approach roads within the land of the petitioners are claimed to have been done during the year 2013 to 2018. As such, the rights of the petitioners will have to be examined in light of the Guidelines issued on 15.10.2015.

¶28

[7.] Thus, without going into any further detail on the issue raised in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of paragraph Nos. 39 & 40 of the order dated 21.09.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 10/2021. Since the parties are already represented before this Court, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib on 13.09.2022 whereafter, the learned Judge, Fast

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

Track Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and make an

¶31

endeavor to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Meena Lalthanzuali and 58 Ors. v. The General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Lalthanzuali and 58 Ors. v. The General Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Lalrinawma and 4 Ors. Vs The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Lad Deptt. and 6 Ors.

Lalngaihawmi Kawlni and 3 Ors. Vs Vanlalchami Colney

Smt. Lalngaihawmi Kawlni and 3 Ors. Vs Smt. Vanlalchami Colney

Central Administrative Tribunal Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Smt. Hmingthanzauvi and 2 Ors. Vs Sh. J. Lalsangzuala and 11 Ors.

Smt. a. Vanlalzawni and Anr. Vs Dr. Renu Sharma and 4 Ors.