Dismissed

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and 30 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 May 2023I.A.(Civil)/544/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, in an interlocutory application filed by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Union of India, rejected a plea to modify an earlier order. The court held that seeking clarification amounts to an appeal which cannot be entertained in an IA. It also clarified that older guidelines can be taken into consideration for guidance but not strictly enforced for pre-2015 projects.

What did the court decide?

The application for modification/clarification of the order dated 20.01.2020 was dismissed with the instruction to the assessing authorities to consider guidelines for guidance but not for strict asse

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/10

¶2

GAHC010039222020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/544/2020

¶5

THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD AND ANR REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, POWER GRID, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIA SARAI, NEW DELHI-110016. DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND 30 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001

¶8

2:THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR POWER GRID HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-9 QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA KATWARIA SARAI NEW DELHI- 110016.

¶9

3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

¶10

THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 6TH FLOOR MONAL TOWER G.S. ROAD

¶11

OPPOSITE ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶12

4:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶13

THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY

¶14

Page No.# 2/10

¶15

GOVT. OF ASSAM ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM POWER (ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006. 6:AKHIL GOGOI SON OF LATE BOLO RAM GOGOI OFFICE OF KRISHAK MUKTI SANGRAM SAMITI DAKSHA PRASAD DEKA BHABAN NEAR KALIMANDIR GANDHIBASTI PO AND PS. CHANDMARI GHY-03 DIST. KAMRUUP(M) ASSAM

¶16

7:NALIN MOMIL S/O LT. BHADRA SANGMA R/O VILL- SOTAI GARO GAON P.O. GAMANI P.S. RANGAPARA DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM 8:ANSISH SANGMA S/O LT. RAJAN MARAK R/O VILL- SATAI GARO GAON P.O. GAMANI P.S. RAGAPARA DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM 9:LATIM MARAK S/O MILTAN MARAK R/O VILL- SATAI GARO GAON P.O. GAMANI

¶17

Page No.# 3/10

¶18

P.S. RANGAPARA DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM 10:MANASH PRATIM BRAHMA S/O UMESH BRAHMA R/O VILL- 1 NO. TANGABARI P.O. NEHRUBAZAR P.S. BIJN DIST. CHIRANG (BTAD) ASSAM 11:BIRDAO BASUMATARY S/O LT. BANESWAR BASUMATARY R/O VILL- THORIBARI P.O. BETONAPARA P.S. BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG (BTAD) ASSAM 12:KHISTISH DAS S/O LT. MAKHAN LAL DAS R/O VILL- PADMAPUR P.O. KAJALGAON P.S. SIDLI DIST. CHIRANG (BTAD) ASSAM 13:JAIUDUL ISLAM S/O MD. AAIJUDDIN ALI R/O VILL- JAYANTIPUR P.O. BURHA P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG ASSAM

¶19

14:MD. AFAJUDDIN AHMED S/O LT. AARAF ALI R/O VILL- JAYANTIPUR

¶20

P.O. BURHA P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG ASSAM

¶21

15:ABDUL JALIL DEWAN S/O TAIMUDDIN DEWAN R/O VILL- PORABHORAL

¶22

Page No.# 4/10

¶23

P.O. SUKMANAH P.S. BHABANIPUR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶24

16:AYUB ALI S/O LT. JALAUDDIN ALI R/O VILL- PORABHORAL P.O. SUKMANAH P.S. BHABANIPUR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶25

17:ABDUL SALAM S/O ABDUL KARIM R/O VILL- PORABHORAL P.O. SUKMANAH P.S. BHABANIPUR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶26

18:SMT. BHANITA DAS W/O TILAK DAS R/O VILL- UTTAR PIPLA P.O.NITYANANDA P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 19:SMT. PURNIMA DAS W/O LT. BIRAJ DAS R/O VILL- UTTAR PIPLA P.O.NITYANANDA P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶27

20:SMT. SABITA MUCHAHARY W/O BOKUL MUCHAHARY R/O VILL- GOLDINGPARA P.O. POMUAPATHAR P.S. MUSALPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM.

¶28

21:AMBIKA SARGAYARI S/O LT. SONESWAR SARGAYARI R/O VILL- DONGPAR

¶29

Page No.# 5/10

¶30

P.O. DONGPAR P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM 22:DIPEN DEKA S/O LT. RATIKANTA DEKA R/O VILL- KOTAHBARI P.O. PADMAPAR P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM 23:HARKANTA HALOI S/O LT. DHANESWAR HALOI R/O VILL- BENNABRI P.O. BENNABARI P.S. BORGURI DIST. BAKSA ASSAM 24:BISHWA BORO S/O JUNGA BORO R/O VILL- GOLDINPARA P.O.POMUAPATHAR P.S. MUSALPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM 25:DAEGO BASUMATARY S/O LT. AMALA BOSUMTOARY R/O VILL- SIKHARGAON P.O. BONARGAON P.S.DOTOMA

¶31

DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 26:ROHILAL BOSUMOTARY S/O SUDHIR CHANDRA BOSUMOTARY R/O VILL- SIKHARGAON P.O. BONARGAON P.S.DOTOMA DIST.KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶32

27:HON KUMAR RABHA

¶33

Page No.# 6/10

¶34

S/O BOLENDRA RABHA R/O VILL- DHULGURI P.O. CHANDRAPARA P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶35

28:HAMEN BRAHMA S/O TIKARAM BRAHMA R/O VILL- DOLOUABARI P.O. DOLOUABARI P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM

¶36

29:BIMAL CH. HAJONG S/O LT. JOGESWAR HAJONG R/O VILL- 2 NO. JAMDOHA

¶37

P.O. GERUKAJORI P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM 30:MD. ABDUL BASIK S/O NURBUX AHMED R/O VILL-MOULUA P.O.MANIKPUR P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM 31:MD. HUJUR ALI S/O LT. TUFANU SHEIKH R/O VILL- 1 NO. KABADI LOU PATILA DOHA P.O. MANIKPUR P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSA

¶38

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M Z AHMED

¶39

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K TIWARI

¶40

Page No.# 7/10

¶41

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶42

ORDER

¶43

12.05.2023

¶44

Heard Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicants; Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the opposite party no. 2; Mr. B. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the opposite party no. 4; and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 6 to 31.

¶45

The opposite party nos. 6 to 31 as the writ petitioners, had instituted the connected writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3776/2018 seeking inter alia a direction to the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no. 2 therein i.e. the applicant no. 1 herein viz. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and the respondent no. 3 therein i.e. the applicant no. 2 herein to ensure payment of adequate compensation to them for use of the petitioners’ parcels of land for Right of Way [RoW] for installation of an electric line under the [i] 400 KV [Quad] Balipara-Bongaigaon Transmission Line; [ii] 400 KV D/C Kameng-Balipara Transmission Line; and [iii] 800 KV [HVDC] Biswanath Chariali–Tangla-Barobisa-Agra Transmission Line in terms of the Guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Power, Government of India for payment of compensation towards damages in regard to Right of Way for transmission lines in the Circular dated 15.10.2015. As indicated hereinabove, the applicants were arrayed as the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 3 in the writ petition.

¶46

The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3776/2018 came to be disposed of by an order dated 20.01.2020 with the following directions :-

¶47

Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following direction :-

¶48

No. 1: The individual petitioners shall approach the concerned Deputy Commissioner specifying and identifying the land which falls within the Right of Way [RoW] of the transmission lines whereafter the concerned Deputy

¶49

Page No.# 8/10

¶50

Commissioner of the respective district shall verify about the genuineness of the claim through the Circle Officers and in the event their claims are found to be genuine, the damages shall be assessed as per the guideline.

¶51

No. 2: If any of the petitioners are aggrieved by the assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners shall take necessary shelter under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 thereby, moving the territorial District Judge for enhancement of the damages inasmuch as in order to invoke the jurisdiction by the territorial District Judge, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, there must be a dispute in respect of the compensation. Similarly, if the respondent PGCIL is aggrieved on the assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, it shall also be at liberty to approach the District Judge concerned.

¶52

No. 3: If the district authority had already assessed the compensation and petitioners are not satisfied such claim of petitioners are entitled to approach the concerned District Judge under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶53

Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that vide Notification No. PEL.2019/2015/91 dated 10.03.2017 issued by the Government of Assam, Power [Electricity] Department, the guideline dated 15.10.2015 issued by the Ministry of Power, Central Government of India had made its application restricted to the extent of new transmission line/projects where construction started after 15.10.2015. There is no doubt to that effect but in order to make the basis of assessment, the guideline can be taken into consideration keeping in view the technicality involved in the issue of determination of the compensation inasmuch as the said compensation cannot be equated with the one under the Land Acquisition Act as in most of the cases ownership of the land shall always remain with the petitioners except the area of land under the tower base which shall have to be abandoned.

¶54

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶55

The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 in the writ petition W.P.[C] no. 3776/2018 as the applicant no. 1 and the

¶56

Page No.# 9/10

¶57

applicant no. 2 respectively seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 20.01.2020. The applicants have urged two grounds, firstly, as per the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Power Grid Corporation while constructing such transmission lines, does not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property, and is required to pay compensation in the form of surface damage compensation, if in case any surface damage is caused, as prepared by the Revenue Authority as per procedure prescribed by law; and secondly, the ownership of the land remains with the land-owners and further, the area of land under the tower base remains the same, and is not degraded. As such the landowners can, in fact, use the said portion for any other purposes and they are not required to be abandoned for the same, as indicated in the aforesaid Order dated 20.01.2020. It is the case of the applicants that the opposite party nos. 6 to 31 i.e. the writ petitioners are utilizing the portion of the lands under the tower base for various purposes, such as cultivation, etc., and as such, the order dated 20.01.2020 ought to be modified and the portion appearing in the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 20.01.2020, “except the area of land under the tower base which shall have to be abandoned” ought to be deleted.

¶58

Having regard to the operative portion of the order dated 20.01.2020, extracted hereinabove, the Court is of the view that such a relief sought for in the instant interlocutory application seeking modification/clarification cannot be granted as the same will only be in the ambit and scope of appeal and such a prayer cannot be allowed in an application seeking modification/clarification. This Court, thus, is of the view that it would be within the appellate jurisdiction only such a prayer can be allowed.

¶59

Mr. Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that he is not pressing the first prayer. He has further submitted that the lands of the opposite party nos. 6 to 31, that is, the original writ petitioners are being utilized for exercising the RoW for the installation of the afore-mentioned transmission lines prior to 2015 and as such, the criteria of assessment laid down in the Guidelines dated 15.10.2015 cannot be enforced as a basis of assessment of damages. In view of the matter, the portion, ‘the damages shall be assessed as per the guideline’ appearing in direction no. 1 of the order dated 20.01.2020 requires correction.

¶60

Page No.# 10/10

¶61

Mr. Tiwari, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 6 to 31 - writ petitioners has submitted that the direction no. 1 of the order dated 20.01.2020 has to be read conjointly with the last line of the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 20.01.2020.

¶62

Admittedly, the portions of land of the opposite party nos. 6 to 31- writ petitioners were utilized exercising the RoW by the applicant Power Grid Corporation of India for installation of the afore-mentioned transmission lines prior to 15.10.2015 and the Guidelines have been framed for assessment of damages with different criteria on 15.10.2015. This Court while accepting the position of the Guidelines which came to be published on 15.10.2015, has already clarified in the absence of any established criteria prior 15.10.2015, to take the Guidelines dated 15.10.2015 into consideration as a basis of the assessment of compensation by the assessing authorities keeping in view the technicality involved in the issue of determination of compensation in a case of such nature. There is no ambiguity in the order dated 20.10.2020 inasmuch as it is clearly discernible that the Guidelines contained in the Circular dated 15.10.2015 are not to be strictly enforced in respect of making assessment for compensation but those Guidelines can certainly be taken into consideration for guidance by the assessing authorities while making the assessment for comparison as the process of assessment of compensation in such case involves some technicality. As there is no ambiguity in the order dated 20.01.2020, this Court does not find any necessity to make any further modification/clarification in the order dated 20.01.2020.

¶63

This order disposes of the interlocutory application.

¶64

JUDGE

¶65

Comparing Assistant

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and 30 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and 30 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hifjur Rahman Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 14 Ors.

Syed Bubul Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kamal Singh Dugar Vs the Rubber Board and 5 Ors.

Md. Abdul Kayum Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jaynal Abedin Sk. and 75 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Dilip Ranjan Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.