Dismissed

Union of India v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2017CW/1829/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the construction of electricity towers on land allotted for employee facilities. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the responsible authority under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, first, before returning to this court if grievances remain unresolved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without being pressed; liberty granted to approach competent authority under Section 17 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within two weeks.

Union of India Vs State and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1829 / 2014

¶3

Union of India through the Commander Headquarter 45 Border Road Task Force, C/o 56 APO.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Energy, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Rajya Vidut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, 400 KV, GSS Rajasthan Rajaya Vidut Vitran Nigam Limited, Headquarter, Badli, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit

¶11

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhavit Sharma, Mr. C.P. Soni

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

¶13

04/12/2017

¶14

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the construction of towers by the Rajasthan Rajaya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (for short ‘RRVPNL’) on the land allotted to it, for the purpose of laying down 132 KV electricity line at village Badli. The land was allotted to the

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

petitioner by the Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur in the year 2012.

¶17

The petitioner is claiming that the land in question, where the towers are erected, has been allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of constructing offices and residential quarters of the employees. It is claimed that if the towers, for laying down electricity line, are allowed to remain on the land of the petitioner, then, they will be deprived from construction of offices and quarters as per the approved plan.

¶18

The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition that a direction be issued to the respondent – RRVPNL to remove the towers already constructed on the land belonging to it and a further direction be issued not to lay down high tension electricity line on the said towers.

¶19

Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that for the purpose of removal or alteration of electricity line, the petitioner can approach to the respondent – RRVPNL as per Section 17 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short ‘the Act of 1885).

¶20

It is contended that till date, the petitioners have not approached the respondent – RRVPNL with a prayer for alteration or removal of towers from the electricity line. It is also contended that in case, the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed by the respondent – RRVPNL, it is open for it to apply before the District Magistrate, Jodhpur for removal and alteration of electricity line as per sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act of

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the following decisions i.e. M/s Mahalaxmi Industries & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (DBCWP No.1258/2016) decided on 8^th August, 2016; Madan Dan Arha & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (DBSAW No.586/2014) decided on 21.4.2014; Gram Panchayat Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No.2704/2016) decided on 19.5.2016; M/s Mahalaxmi Industries Limited & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. (SBCWP No.9971/2016) decided on 4^th October, 2016 and Hansraj Goswami & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (DBCWP No.1807/2014) decided on 3^rd July, 2014. .

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press this writ petition, however seeks liberty for the petitioner to approach the competent authority of the respondent – RRVPNL for alteration or removal of 132 KV electricity line from the land of the petitioners and for removal of the towers already erected for that purpose.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection if the aforesaid liberty is granted to the petitioners.

¶26

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority of the respondent – RRVPNL within a period of two weeks from today with a prayer for altering the plan of laying down 132 KV electricity line and for removal of towers already

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

erected.

¶29

It is expected that if any such representation is made on behalf of the petitioner within a period of two weeks, while suggesting alternative plan for laying down the said electricity line, the competent authority of the respondent – RRVPNL shall consider the same objectively and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of submission of the application.

¶30

Needless to say that if the grievance of the petitioner is not redressed by the respondent – RRVPNL, the petitioner is free to apply before the District Magistrate, Jodhpur as per sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act of 1885.

¶31

Stay petition is also dismissed.

¶32

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶33

Ms rathore

Union of India v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Shri Ram Builders Vs State and Ors.

Monika Chhimpa and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Nitesh Kumar Vs the Dist. and Sessions Judge,Bikaner and Anr.

Meena Kanwar Rajput Vs Dist. Magistrate, Bhilwara and Ors.

Rama Phosphates Ltd. Vs State and Anr.

Rampyari Vs Jvvnl Jodhpur and Ors.