Partly allowed

Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Koli v. Collector and District Magistrate

Gujarat HC20 Jun 2022SCA/10339/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench allowed the Special Civil Application partly. The Court quashed the observations in the impugned order confirming the compensation amount fixed by the Mamlatdar, holding the Collector acted ultra vires regarding compensation. However, the Court dismissed challenges to the permission for erecting the line, directing the petitioners to approach the District Judge under Sectio

What did the court decide?

Quashed observation confirming compensation; rest of order made final regarding transmission line erection. Aggrieved parties directed to approach District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Act.

Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Koli Vs Collector and District… — Quashing and FIR | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/10339/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10339 of 2020

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

ISHWARBHAI NANJIBHAI KOLI

¶6

Versus

¶7

COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

¶8

========================================================== Appearance:

¶9

MR VICKY B MEHTA(5422) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

¶12

Date : 20/06/2022

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

Being aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Surendranagar in Pole Vij Rekha / Case No.13 of 2020, the petitioners have filed the writ petition.

¶15

At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Mehta, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction since the respondent Authorities have also determined the compensation, though the application was filed by the respondent No.2 seeking permission for laying down the transmission line. He has submitted that though the petitioners have received the compensation, they are disputing the same as they are entitled to much amount, which is already granted to them. It is submitted by him that by the aforesaid order, in fact, the petitioners would be deprived of the remedy under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (for short, “the Act”) for challenging the compensation, which was already determined by the Authority.

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

C/SCA/10339/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2022

¶18

2.1 Learned advocate Mr.Mehta, has also placed reliance on Section 10 of the Act, and has submitted that as per Section 10(d), the Telegraph Authority empowered to pay full compensation to all the persons interested for the damage sustained by them. It is submitted by him that as on today, the work with regard to the installation of the electric polls are going on however, the petitioners have aggrieved by the observations made by the Collector with regard to the confirming order of the Mamlatdar, determining the compensation. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 had filed an application before the respondent No.1 seeking permission of installing the polls and in that application, a notice came to be issued to the petitioners on 10.06.2020 and the matter was kept on 23.06.2020 however, one day prior to the next date of hearing, the petitioners received such notice on 22.06.2020 and they immediately requested the Collector for adjournment but the concerned respondent No.1 did not grant any further time and the impugned order was passed. Thus, he has submitted that the said order is required to be quashed and set aside, as it suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶19

2.2 It is finally submitted by learned advocate Mr.Mehta, that the petitioners may be given all opportunity to contest the determination of the compensation.

¶20

In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent - company had offered compensation Rs.225/- per sq.mtrs. as against Rs.38/-, as per Jantri value, which was fixed in the year 2011 for laying down

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

C/SCA/10339/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2022

¶23

the construction and erection of the transmission line. It is submitted that the compensation is determined as per the policy of the State Government and in case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they can approach under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act.

¶24

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the impugned order may not be interfered with as the same is appropriately passed on the application made by the respondent No.2 seeking permission for erecting the transmission polls. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have confirmed the compensation determined by the respondent No.2 and the Mamlatdar, and hence, the said order may not be interfered.

¶25

I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis . I have also perused the relevant documents.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 i.e. the Collector and the District Magistrate, had passed the impugned order dated 29.05.2020 on the application filed by the respondent No.2 - Chief Manager being Case No.13 of 2020 seeking permission for construction or erection of transmission line. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the present petitioners, however, it is disputed by the petitioners that they have received the same only one day prior to passing of the said order and they had also requested for adjournment and the order is passed without hearing the petitioners. Be that as it may, the Court has perused the impugned order and a bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Collector, while passing the said order seeking erection of transmission line, has also approved the action of the respondent authorities with

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

C/SCA/10339/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2022

¶29

regard to the fixation of the compensation of Rs.225/- per sq.mtrs. Thus, the Collector could not have acted beyond which the application was filed. The issue with regard to payment or determination of compensation of Rs.225 sq.mtrs., could not have been dealt with.

¶30

In these view of the impugned order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Surendranagar with regard to the observation confirming the determination of the compensation or Rs.225 is quashed and set aside. However, the rest of the observations and directions concerning the erection of transmission line are not disturbed and the same are ordered to be made final.

¶31

Since the petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the determination of the compensation, at this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act. Section 16(3) reads as thus :-

¶32

“16. (3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, be determined by him.”

¶33

A plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act will clarify that in case of any dispute concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under Section 10, clause (d) of the Act, the same shall be determined or adjudicated by the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Thus, the petitioners can avail the aforesaid remedy and all the contentions of the petitioners with regard to the compensation, are left open. If

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

C/SCA/10339/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2022

¶36

such an application is made, the same shall be decided after giving opportunity to all the affected parties.

¶37

With these observations, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned the order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Surendranagar in Pole Vij Rekha / Case No.13 of 2020, is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

¶38

Sd/- (A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

¶39

MAHESH BHATI/02

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Koli v. Collector and District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwarbhai Nanjibhai Koli v. Collector and District Magistrate

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

Ashutosh Natwarlal Desai Vs State of Gujarat

Damor Dhuliben Nathiyabhai Vs State of Gujarat

Variya Kinjalben Kanjibhai Vs State of Gujarat

Bhupatrai Himmatlal Sawani Vs State of Gujarat

Vanrajbhai Ramkubhai Govaliya Vs the Additional Director

Ghoghara Kalpanaben Mahendrabhai Vs State of Gujarat