Remanded

Birendra Mishra v. Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC14 Mar 2014CWJC/12486/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning land acquisition for a 400 KV transmission line, the High Court allowed the petitioner to approach the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to determine the sufficiency of compensation offered for felled trees, noting the amount had been tendered but refused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an application before the District Judge within four weeks to determine the fair compensation; condonation date to be considered.

Birendra Mishra Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12486 of 2006
	====================================================== Birendra Mishra son of Late Ayodhya Mishra, resident of village Sripur Gahar, P.O. Sripur Gahar, P.S. Khanpur, Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The Chairman, Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi 3. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi 4. Bihar State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bihar Patna 5. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Samastipur 6. Project Engineer cum Filed Engineer, Power Transmission Limited, Vrindavan Colony, Gobarshi Post Khabra, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================
	Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi Mr. Manoj Kr. Jha Mr. Md. Javed Jafar Khan Mr. Om Prakash Singh For respondent no.6 Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha For respondent no. 1 Mr. Din Bandhu Mishra For the State Mrs. Shalini Raut ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER
8 14	-03-2014 Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi for the petitioner, Mr. Bipin
	Kumar Sinha for respondent no.6, counsel for the State as well as
	the Union of India. The petitioner owns a tract of land(s) details whereof have
	been set out in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The respondents
	erected/installed a transmission line of 400 KV D/C Purnia- Muzaffarpur. The alignment of the said transmission line passed
	through the land of the petitioner which is said to be an orchard. A notice (Annexure-1) in this regard under the relevant provisions of
	the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885(for short „the Act‟)was issued to

¶2

Patna High Court CWJC No.12486 of 2006 (8) dt.14-03-2014

¶3

2 / 4

¶4

the petitioner. Again the same notice appears to have been issued to the petitioner on 06.04.2006. The petitioner is said to have replied to those notices on 19.04.2006 stating, inter alia, that removal/felling of trees may not be in the interest of environment and should be avoided. The alignment of the transmission line, therefore, be altered/modified. In case the respondents are compelled to fell the trees then adequate compensation be paid to the petitioner therefor. There is no dispute that while the matter was pending consideration, some of the trees belonging to the petitioner have been felled/cut down and the transmission line has already been erected/installed.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents have on their own computed/calculated the compensation amount for those trees which has not till date been received by the petitioner. It is stated with reference to the provision contained in section 16(3) of the Act that the law provides the petitioner a remedy to approach the District Judge having jurisdiction over the territorial area in question for determination of fair/adequate compensation if a grievance in this regard is raised by the applicant.

¶6

Mr. Sinha learned counsel for respondent no.6 with reference to the averments made in counter affidavit submitted

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.12486 of 2006 (8) dt.14-03-2014

¶8

3 / 4

¶9

that compensation amount for the trees belonging to the petitioner which was/were felled for laying the transmission line has already been computed in the sum of Rs.43,425/- which was tendered to the petitioner but the same refused. Drawing attention of the Court to paragraph 12, 21 and 22 of the counter affidavit he submits that before cutting of the trees the respondents had tendered the value thereof which was not received by him. The compensation payable to the petitioner was calculated/quantified as per the government approved rate. He also relies in this regard on the notification (Annexure-A/6) published in the Gazette of India in order to support his submissions.

¶10

In reply, counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the statement made in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that only 67 tress belonging to the petitioner were cut. In fact the respondents have not counted as to how many tress of the petitioner were cut for laying the said transmission line.

¶11

Having heard the parties, it appears that the respondent have already laid the transmission line for which some of the trees of the petitioner have been felled/cut down. They have calculated the compensation therefor which appears to have been tendered to the petitioner who has, however, not received the same.

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.12486 of 2006 (8) dt.14-03-2014

¶13

4 / 4

¶14

Section 16(3) of the Act reads as under:-

¶15

“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 situate, be determined by him.”

¶16

It thus appears that any aggrieved party/person disputing the sufficiency/adequacy of the compensation amount paid under section 10, clause(d) of the Act, may raise an issue before the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property/land is situate whereafter the court shall adjudicate on the claim of the person/claimant. The petitioner, therefore, may approach the District Judge of the concerned district raising the dispute with regard to sufficiency/adequacy of the compensation.

¶17

Needless to observe that if any such application supported by condonation application is filed within four weeks, the learned District Judge shall consider and allow the condonation application considering the facts that the petitioner had been bonafidely pursing his remedy before this Court and thereafter proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

¶18

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶19

HR/-

Birendra Mishra v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Mishra v. Union of India and 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

Bijay Kumar Singh Vs The Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Suresh Roy Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shashi Kala Jha and Anr. Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited and Ors.

Sudha Sinha and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bimal Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kundan Kishor Rastogi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.