Disposed

Smt.Ch.Rajita, v. The Government of India

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023WP/9217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single Judge order disposes of a writ petition challenging the cutting of red sandal wood trees for laying transmission lines. The Court held that while respondents are liable to pay compensation, the valuation of damaged trees and poles by the Forest Officer was procedurally flawed as it lacked statutory basis and had not been furnished to the petitioner for objections. Consequently, the Cou

What did the court decide?

Respondent 7 (Divisional Forest Officer) directed to re-assess damage value with justification for petitioner to file objections; respondent 3 and 4 to pay compensation thereafter.

Smt.Ch.Rajita, Vs The Government of India — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA-' ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

I\4ONDAY, TWO THOUSAND THE TWENTY FOURTH AND TWENTY DAY OF APRILTHREE _

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITIONNO:9217 oF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

;Tfe3,i[1's;[,1i:Sf;^{E?,T6;,.1%:Sf,'f#,f f} ^1,",.?fi,?i,";#3l,ft^{],li?yf i}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I:iB?fi,:"{til6of^{tndia, Ministryof power,ShramShakti Bhavan} Rafi Mars,

¶12

'gf:g;-f

¶13

#ffi *1:i{[I:i#i,}f^{a6::lli:#;;?liinvJ;#;",%;f} i;:"1"

¶14

t Mi.HBi"[iXl'3?:*:".,ission Ltd, c-105, Anand Niketan, New Derhi-100

¶15

The Manaqer, M/s.Warora_Kurnoo.l Transmission Ltd Site Office,Ground Floor 3?;^{tr, premaNitayamApartments dri;;;;; i;["s,Kishansuda _} 501

¶16

' iilU:ir:!'l:Eliu,%":',h- H,,T8i?[,TJ:.",1,I',El:ui","ffih:1,i,$],".,r?

¶17

The Collector and District Magistrate, Mancherial District- SO4 2Og

¶18

The Divisional Forest Officer, Mancherial District- SO4 2Og.

¶19

The Station House Officr and O), Jaipur police Station, Jaipur Mandal

¶20

Mancherial Distric! UOO i.r*

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit treo tnerewrin, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction ,or" p"i,"ur"dy one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the high r,"nouJ^-"ltion of respondents 3 & 4 in carrying out works/raying the overhead n.r.erectric suppry rine through the rand

¶23

._t ...t"t

¶24

¶25

in Sy.No.178/24 situated at^{pegadapallyvillage. Jaipur l\4andal, [t4ancherial} District by unrlaterally cutting^{down standing Read sandal wood trees without} payment of requisite compensation as^{wholly illegal, unlust,untenable,} unconstitutional, violative^{of Artrcle 300-4 of constitutlonof India, humanrights,} as well the^{provisionsof Electncity Act,2003,works of License Rules,2006and} consequently to direct the^{3rd respondentrefrain from laying the lines until} compensation is^{paid to the trees cutting down and the damage to the standing} trees as^per assessed^{by 6th and 7th respondents'}

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the 3rd and^{4th Respondentnoi to lay the H.T.Linesat the property in Sy'} No.'178/24,situatedatpegadapallyvillage,JaipurMandal'MancherialDistrict until the compensation^{iJ determined by 6th and 7th respondentspending} disposal of the^{abovewrit petition.}

¶28

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRISRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI}

¶29

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.'l & 2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR'}

¶30

DY. SOLICITOR^{GENERALOF INDIA}

¶31

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI SARANGAFZALPURKARr''}

¶32

Counsel for^{the Respondent No.5: - - - -}

¶33

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶34

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.7: GP FOR FOREST}

¶35

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'8: GP FOR HOME}

¶36

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶37

I ) I

¶38

i I

¶39

THE HONOTJITAI}LE SMT. JTJSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶40

WRITPETITION NO.92I7 OF 2023

¶41

o R D E R

¶42

In this Writ Petition, tl.re petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 3 and 4 in carrying out works/laying the overhead H.T. electric supply line through the land of the petitioner in Survey No. 178/24 situatcd at pcgadapally Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District by unilatcrally cutting down standing red sandal wood trees without paylnent ol- requisite compensation. as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently to direct respondent No.3 to relrain from laying the lines until compcnsation is paid for the trees which have been cut down and for the darnage caused to the standing trees as assessed by respondenrs 6 and 7 and to pass such other order or orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case.

¶43

Leamed counsel 1'or the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2018, there was a proposal by respondent No.2 to lay transmission lines under "lWs. Warora-Kumool^{'l'ransmission} Ltd.,' project and the transmission lines passed through the petitioner's property. It is submitted that the petitioner's land is agricultural land and she was

¶44

Eaz:-r::;:=:-

¶45

2 \' P No S2 t7 of 201.]

¶46

gro\ving rcd sandal wood plantation in the said Ianci and b1, virtue of the high tension electric tr.anstrission lines passing thror-rgii the land of the petrrloner, she has i,cu.recr severe ross or ra,d and crop. It is submitted that without paying an1, co,pensatiorl to the petitiorer, respondents 3 and 4 have proceeded to la1, the Iines and therefore, thc petitioner has filed the prescnt Wrir petition.

¶47

The leamed counsel for the petitioner subrritted that respondent No 3 has issucd a notice dr.28.03.2023 infbrrnirg rhe peririoner that 2 r r red sandal wood trees have been damaged during the stringing of the transmission Iines. However, the responderrts have not paid compensation stating thar it is the responsibility of the Forest Department and the District collector who have to assess the loss caused by such damage.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, the respondents are empowered to lay electric lines and the petitioner and the land owners are only entitled to compensation for the damage of standing crop or trees under the said rransmission rines. He subrnitted that it is the Forest Department which has to assess the fl2m2qs and if such assessment is made, respondcnts 3 and 4 would makc nlyment to the petitioner.

¶49

W.P.No.92l7 ot'202i

¶50

¶51

Learned Govemrrcnr^pleader fbi- F orests has obtained instructions and submitted a copy oi the asscss,lc,r r.eport, according to which, there has been damage of2l1 red sandai wood trees and the value of the same has been estimared at23.957 Crnt and the value of poles are estimated at Rs.2,75,7371-.It is submitted that the valuation was fixed based on the rates adopted from Forest Schedule of Rates of Kaddapa and Kurnoor Districts for the year 2022-23 ol Andhra pradesh.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on going through the said repon, submitted that there is no definition of 'pore, in the Forest Act and actually there is onry a definition or'tree' and the valuation of such trees has to be assessed as per the Telangana Minor Forest produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, r9i r in Metric ronnage. It is submitted that the Forest Department has not given any basis for valuing the red sandal wood trees for classifring the red sandal wood trees as poles and for valuing the said poles at Rs.2,75,737/_ or to be at 23.957 Cmt. He submitted that the valuation done by the Forest Officer is not in accordance with the Forest Laws.

¶53

Having gone through the material on record and having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds that the only issue in this Writ

¶54

t! i).No 9l t7 o! l0ll

¶55

¶56

¶57

I)etition is uith rcgard to rhc compcnsation to be,aid io the petitioncr lor loss of .cd sandar rv.od t.ees rvhicr-r have hee. planted by the pelitioner and takcn care ol by her, due to the lal,ing oi high tcnsion transmission lines through her land by respondenrs 3 and 4. As submitted by the respondents, it is the concerned Forest oflicer who has to assess the damage caused to the petitioner. T.he report submitted by the learned co'emment pleader for Forests does nol secm to have been Iumishcd to the petitioner and there is also referencc to ,polcs' and the learned Governrnent Pleader has not been able to point out as to rvhat a 'pole' would mean under Forest Larvs.

¶58

In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct respondent No.7 to re-assess the value of the red sandal wood trees which have been or would be darnaged by laying of high tension lines in the fields of the petitioner and furnish the same to the peritioner along with justification for such valuation and the petitioner shafl be permitted to file her objections, if any, to the same. Thereafter, cornpensation shall be paid to the petitioner by respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with law and the relevant rules and regulations in respecl of the sarne.

¶59

9 With the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs

W ir No.92 t7 oi202l

Perrding misceiianeous petitions, il'a,y, in this Writ petition shail

¶64

stand closed

¶65

SD/. P. PADMANABHA DDY ASSISTANT REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

The Government of lndia, Ministry of Power, Shram Shakti Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi- 100 001

¶70

The Managing. Director, The Power Grid Corporation of lndia, (Central Transmission Utility) Corporate Office- Saudlryrini plot No.2, S'ector-29 Qurglgm-^{1?2OO1Registered Office B-9, eutrb lndustrial Area,Katwaria} Sarai New Delhi- 1 10 016

¶71

The Director, M/s.Warora Kurnool Transmission Ltd, C-i05, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-100 02 1 .

¶72

The Manager, M/s.Warora-Kurnool Transmission Ltd Site Office,Ground Floor 001 Sai Prema Nilayam Apartments Brindavan Gardens, Kishanguda _ 501-218

¶73

M/s.Essel lnfra pro^je^cts Ltd, Warora Kurnool Transmission Ltd plot No.19,

¶74

^^{Film City,Sector-1.6_GautamBuddha Nagar,Noida, Uttarpradesh _ZOi iOi}

¶75

The Collector and District Magistrate, Manchenal Districi- 504 ,0g

¶76

The Divisional Forest Officer, Mancherial District- 504 208.

¶77

The Station House Officer_(L & O), Jaipur police Station, Jaipur Mandal Er Mancherial District- 5O4 216

¶78

One CC to SRI SRINIVASA_RAO_Pp_TLUI|, Advocate tOpUCl

¶79

,I 10.One CC to SRI SARANG4E4!pURKAR, AOvocate lOeU-l' 1 . ONE CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICiTOR dENERAL OF

¶80

rNDtA [OPUC]

¶81

12.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶82

'13. Two CCs to GP FOR FOREST, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶83

14.Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for ihe State of Tetangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶84

15.Two CD Copies BN

¶85

GJP&_,-

Erq.'-!

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410412023

ORDER

WP.No.9217 of 2023

1 $E. S Tr,7 <br>c(' c',i.
,,...1
t ii-
I o
O [ 1 ir[Y 2$n
\1\i.v ),

¶92

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶93

,....^)
\
( )h
<br>

Smt.Ch.Rajita, v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ch.Rajita, v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Amair Vs Sri.Aravind Kumar, IAS and 6 others

Susheel Kumar Agarwal and another Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company Of Telangana State

Nagisetty Nagendra Rao Vs Shri Giridhar Aramane IAS

Sri. Mohd. Abdul Arshad Vs The State of Telangana

D. Chakradhar Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Kavali Veeresham Vs The State of Telangana