Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 1 of 12
Before the
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005.
Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.mercindia.org.in/ www.merc.gov.in
CASE No. 56 of 2017
In the matter of
Petition of Smt. Prabha Shankarrao Dhote for revision of the District Magistrate,
Wardha’s Order dated 17.12.2016 regarding Transmission works on her land
Coram
Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member
Shri Deepak Lad, Member
Smt. Prabha Shankarrao Dhote ... Petitioner
V/s
1) The District Magistrate, Wardha
2) Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. …Respondents
Appearance
For the Petitioner ….Shri Kawish B. Dange (Adv.)
…. Petitioner in person
For the Respondent No.1 ....None
For the Respondent No. 2 …. Shri D.M. Kale (Adv.)
….. Shri Anil G. Patil
ORDER
Dated: 23 January, 2018
Smt. Prabha Shankarrao Dhote, 23, Sichan Nagar, Darvha Road, Yavatmal, has filed a
Petition in Case No. 56 of 2017 on 21.4.2017 under Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Electricity
Works of Licensees Rules (MEWLR), 2012 for revision of the District Magistrate (DM),
Wardha’s Order dated 17.12.2016 permitting the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Co. Ltd. (MSETCL) to construct 220 kV Line Towers on her Non-Agricultural (NA) Plot of
land.
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 2 of 12
2. The Petition has the following prayers:
a) “Quash and Set aside the order passed by the Honorable District Magistrate, Wardha
on 17/12/2016.
b) Direct the Non-applicant no.2 and 3(MSETCL) to remove the Tower installed at Plot
no.80 and if not possible to pay full compensation for the area 450.51 sq.m. of N.A.
Plot as per statutory provision along with interest on the quantum of fair
compensation.
c) Direct the Non Applicant 1 to determine the compensation as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule
3 of Maharashtra Electricity Work of Licensees Rules, 2012.
d) Saddled the Cost to the Non Applicant no. 2 and 3 for defying the statutory provisions
and for irreparable loss to the Applicant…”
3. The facts as stated in the Petition are as summarized below:
3.1 The Petitioner is the owner of a NA Plot No. 80 with an area of 450.51 sq.m. at
Survey No.226 in Gajanan Nagri, Part 5, Sailsura village, District Wardha.
3.2 MSETCL had initiated construction of a 220 kV EHV Transmission Line Tower
foundation on the Petitioner’s NA Plot without notice and permission of the Petitioner
which is mandatory as per the statutory provisions. On 19.6.2016, the Petitioner
noticed that MSETCL had completed the excavation and foundation for erection of
the Tower and subsequent activities.
3.3 From 20.6 to 28.7.2016, the Petitioner tried to contact MSETCL officials and apprised
them that there is no provision to install a Transmission Tower on the NA Plot in view
of technical as well as legal constraints. However, MSETCL did not discontinue the
work.
3.4 Aggrieved by the coercive action of MSETCL, the Petitioner submitted an application
to the DM, Wardha on 21.11.2016 to direct MSETCL to remove the Tower or pay the
full compensation towards damages as per the statutory provisions.
3.5 The Petitioner has claimed compensation on the following grounds:
i. As per Rule 3 of the MEWLR, 2012, it is obligatory on MSETCL to serve a
notice and obtain prior written consent of the owner or occupier of the land,
which has not been followed by MSETCL.
ii. Extra High Voltage (EHV) Lines cannot be laid through the NA Plot in view of
Transmission corridor and adequate building clearance to be maintained as per
the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) (Measures relating to safety and electric
supply) Regulations, 2010 read with the Standards IS:5613 (part 2/sec 2) 1985.
iii. The Regulations prohibit construction of a building on a NA Plot. Neither a
building can be constructed on the Plot nor can it be sold out due to installation
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 3 of 12
of the Transmission Line Tower. Also, there would be restrictions on usage of
the land under the Conductor as it is required to maintain safety clearance. The
pecuniary value of the Plot is fully diminished and the Petitioner has incurred an
irreparable loss.
iv. The legal notice was served on MSETCL on 24.8.2016, but MSETCL did not
respond.
v. After hearing the parties on 6.1 and 13.12.2016, the DM, Wardha passed an
Order on 17.12. 2016 directing MSETCL to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioner as
the cost of the Petition and compensation towards damages caused due to
erection of the Tower.
vi. The DM, Wardha ignored the provisions governing the Transmission corridor
and building clearance mentioned in the applications filed on 21.11 and 13.12.
2016 and review Application dated 17.1.2017. Moreover, the provisions of the
MEWLR, 2012 have not been considered for determination of compensation.
The required safety clearances are as below:
Sr.
No.
Particulars Width and
Clearances in
meter for 220 kV
Line
Reference
1 Right of Way
(Width)
35 Meter 5.3.2,5.4.2, IS:5613(Part2/sec2)-1985
2 Clearance above
Ground
7.0 Meter CEA (Measures relating to safety and
Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010.
Regulation No. 58(4)
3 Clearance from
Building
Vertical Clearance
Horizontal Clearance
4.5 Meter
3.8 Meter
Regulations as above. Regulation
no.61(1),61(2)(ii)
Regulation no.61(3)(iii)
4 Ground, Vertical and
Horizontal Clearance
Regulation 58 and
61
Schedule -X
vii. The DM, Wardha has considered only the triangular area of the Plot on which
one leg of the Tower is installed. However, the area covered by the
Transmission Line corridor is ignored and thus the Petitioner is deprived of the
full compensation for the area damaged due to installation of the Tower.
viii. The Plot is 450.51 sq.m., out of which 339.25 sq. m. area has been damaged.
The balance 111.26 sq. m. area is not useful for any purpose. Thus, the
compensation has to be paid towards damages for the entire 450.51 sq.m.
ix. The Order of the DM, Wardha does not indicate the quantum of compensation,
which is obligatory on him as per Rule 3(2) of the MEWLR, 2012.
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 4 of 12
x. The DM, Wardha did not consider the prayer of the Petitioner for either removal
of the Tower or payment of full compensation for entire 450.51 sq.m. Plot area.
xi. MSETCL did not initiate any action for compensation against damages and even
defied the Order of the DM, Wardha.
xii. Aggrieved by the Order of the DM, Wardha, a Review Application was filed on
17.01.2017 which was rejected by him.
4. The additional submission of the Petitioner dated 11.5.2017 is summarized as below :
4.1 The Petitioner has accepted a cheque of Rs. 63,040/- dated 31.3.2017 from
MSETCL under protest as the compensation paid is very much lower than the actual
loss incurred by her.
4.2 Vide letter dated 10.4.2017, MSETCL informed that 68 sq.m. area is considered for
determination of compensation. Accordingly, vide letter dated 19.4.2017, the
Petitioner has communicated to MSETCL stating that the amount of compensation
is very low as the area covered under damage is 339.25 sq.m. Also, the valuation
statement was not provided by MSETCL.
4.3 The Petitioner has asked for information regarding notices issued to the land owners
before lying of the Transmission Line, panchnama of the damaged crops, valuation
statement and copy of crop compensation Order, etc. MSETCL informed her that no
Transmission Line Towers were erected on the NA Plot during April 2010 to
March, 2016. Therefore, it established that there is a provision to issue notices to the
affected parties. Further, it was confirmed that generally laying of EHV
Transmission Line over a NA Plot is avoided.
5. MSETCL’s Reply dated 18 May, 2017 (submitted at the hearing ) is summarized as
below:
5.1. MSETCL is a State Transmission Utility (STU) as well as a Transmission Licensee
as per the provisions of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003. MSETCL is duly
empowered to exercise the powers of a Telegraph Authority as per Part-III of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for construction of Line-in Line-out (LILO) on 220 kV
Bhugaon-Pusad Double Circuit (D/C) Line.
5.2. Construction of the LILO on that Line was proposed to evacuate the power from
the proposed 400 kV Wardha sub-station of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
(PGCIL). The Scheme has been approved by MSETCL’s Board of Directors vide
BR No.52/13 dated 23.04.2010 and was notified in the Government Gazette. The
project is for the public welfare. After completion of the project, the voltage profile
in the area will improve.
5.3. The Industries, Energy and Labour Department (IE&LD) of the Government of
Maharashtra (GoM), vide its letter dated 6.8.2012, sanctioned scheme of LILO on
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 5 of 12
the 220 kV Bhugaon-Pusad D/C Line. The Line is passing through Plot No. 80 of
the Petitioner with area of 450.51 sq.m.
5.4. MSETCL is empowered to survey and decide the route of the Transmission Line.
The work was undertaken as per the powers vested in it as Telegraph Authority.
MSETCL assured to cause as little damage as possible to the Petitioner. Also,
MSETCL shall make assessment of the losses suffered by the Petitioner and pay
the compensation in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Petitioner may be
directed by the Commission not to obstruct the work.
5.5. The work of the Transmission Line includes excavation, foundation, erection of
Towers, stringing of Conductors and allied works. At the time of conversion of the
land from agricultural to non-agricultural, the Petitioner has not obtained No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from MSETCL. Construction of Transmission Line
was initiated as per the sanctioned route and the map survey finalized, and has been
commissioned on 25.8.2016. MSETCL has paid compensation of Rs. 63,040/- vide
cheque no. 1895 dated 31.03.2017.
5.6. On the issue of prior permission of the land owner, the Supreme Court Judgement
dated 14.12.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016 (PGCIL vs Century Textiles
and Industries Ltd. and others), and the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
Judgements dated 22.3.2012 in WP No. 256/2012 and Judgement dated 3.8.2015 in
WP No. 2538 of 2011 may be referred to.
5.7. MSETCL had replied to the Petitioner’s legal notice dated 24.8.2016 on 15.9.2016.
5.8. In view of these facts, the contentions raised by the Petitioner are misconceived
and baseless. The Petitioner wants to create obstacles after completion of the work
of Transmission Line. The 220 kV Line is completed and its route cannot be
changed now.
5.9. The Petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief from the Commission. The Line
needs to be completed in the interest of the public at large. Hence, the present
revision, being devoid of merit, needs to be dismissed at the stage of admission
itself.
6. At the hearing held on 18 May, 2017:
6.1.The Petitioner stated that:
a) MSETCL had initiated construction of a 220 kV EHV Transmission Line Tower
foundation work on her NA Plot without notice and prior permission, which is
mandatory as per the MEWLR, 2012 and other statutory provisions. MSETCL
completed the Tower erection and subsequent activities on 19.6.2016.
b) The Petitioner contacted MSETCL’s authorities and apprised them that EHV Lines
cannot be constructed on the NA Plot in view of the Transmission corridor and
adequate safety clearances to be maintained as per the CEA (Measures relating to
safety and electric supply) Regulations, 2010 read with IS:5613. However, MSETCL
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 6 of 12
did not respond. Aggrieved by the non-response, the Petitioner served a notice to shift
the Tower from her NA Plot. MSETCL did not reply.
c) MSETCL did not follow the procedure to lay down the 220 kV Transmission Line,
due to which neither can a building be constructed on the Plot nor can it be sold due to
installation of the Tower. Also, there are restrictions on usage of the area below the
Conductors to maintain the minimum clearances for safety purposes. Hence, the value
of the Plot is fully diminished and the Petitioner has incurred irreparable loss.
d) Aggrieved by the action of MSETCL, the Petitioner had filed an application before
the DM, Wardha on 21.11.2016 for removal of the Tower and payment of
compensation towards damages as per the statutory provisions.
e) Initially, MSETCL stated that no Tower is erected on the Petitioner’s land. Thereafter,
as per the directives of the DM at the hearing held on 6.12.2016, MSETCL carried out
spot inspection of the site on 8.12.2016, and submitted that one leg of the Tower is
erected on the Petitioner’s Plot. Accordingly, the affected area of the Plot was
calculated.
f) The DM, Wardha passed the Order on 17.12.2016, partly allowing the Petitioner’s
Application. The DM also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- upon MSETCL and also
directed it to pay compensation towards damages.
g) DM, Wardha, in his Order, ignored the provisions relating to Right of Way (RoW)
Corridor for Transmission Lines and safety clearances, though these were mentioned
in the applications filed on 21.11 and 13.12.2016, and 17.1.2017.
h) The Petitioner’s prayers before the DM were to remove the Tower from the NA Plot
or to pay full compensation for the entire 450.51 sq.m. as neither can the Plot be used
for building a house nor could it be sold due to the presence of the Tower and
overhead Line thereon. However, the DM did not consider the prayers of the
Petitioner and remained silent on these.
i) Out of the total 450.51 sq.m. area, 339.25 sq.m. of the Plot is affected because of
erection of the Tower and Line. The balance 111.26 sq.m. area cannot be utilized for
any purpose. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for the entire 450.51
sq.m. However, the DM has considered only the area affected by one leg of the Tower
and ignored the area covered by RoW of the Line for determination of compensation.
j) MSETCL, vide its letter dated 10.4.2017, offered compensation of Rs. 63,040/- by
cheque, stating that 68 sq.m. area is considered for calculation of compensation,
which was accepted under protest. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 19.4.2017,
informed MSETCL that the compensation offered is not acceptable as it is very low as
compared to the affected area of 339.25 sq.m. of the Plot, and also that the basis and
the valuation statement is not provided by MSETCL.
k) The Petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from
MSETCL regarding the formats of prior notices to be issued to land owners,
panchnama of damaged crops, valuation statement and copy of crop compensation
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 7 of 12
orders, Towers erected on NA Plots, etc. In reply, MSETCL informed her that it has
not erected Towers on any N.A. Plot from April, 2010 to March, 2016.
l) As per the Guidelines of the Government of India (GoI) dated 15.10.2015 and opinion
of the Attorney General of India, compensation payable in case of a residential
/industrial area is different from the compensation payable for agricultural land.
m) As per Rule 3 (3) of MEWLR, 2012 read with Section 67 (4) of EA, 2003, the
Commission can revise the Order passed by the DM. The Commission may determine
the compensation for the entire Plot of 450.51 sq.m. as it cannot be sold or used for
any other purpose.
6.2.MSETCL submitted a copy of its Reply at the hearing, and stated that:
a) At the time of erection of the Tower, the land was barren and the work was never
opposed by the Petitioner at the time of execution.
b) At the time of execution of works, some other land owners opposed erection of the
Towers. Hence, MSETCL approached the DM, Wardha in June, 2016. After obtaining
the permission of the DM, Wardha vide Order dated 27.6.2016, erection of 220 kV
Transmission Line was carried out and the Line was commissioned on 25.8.2016.
c) MSETCL referred to the Order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Wardha
regarding the NA permission for the land and stated that, at the time of conversion of
land from agricultural to non-agricultural, the authority did not obtain the NOC of
MSETCL.
d) To a query of the Commission regarding the basis of determination of compensation,
MSETCL stated that, as per the directives of the DM, the Town Planning Department
of Wardha District made the assessment of compensation for the affected land.
Accordingly, MSETCL has paid compensation of Rs. 63,040/- to the Petitioner.
e) On the adequacy of compensation, MSETCL stated that it is bound and ready to pay
compensation towards the damage caused due to erection of the Transmission Line as
determined by the DM as he is the competent authority to do so.
f) The Commission observed that MSETCL had not furnished the following documents
during the hearing to understand the facts:
i. The DM’s Order issued in June, 2016 permitting erection of the Line by
MSETCL;
ii. The DM’s letter directing the Town Planning Department to determine the
compensation;
iii. Details of actual affected area of the Plot;
iv. Area considered for determination of compensation;
v. Rates of land considered for determining the compensation; etc.
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 8 of 12
The Commission gave 10 days to MSETCL to file its submission with a copy to the
Petitioner.
7. MSETCL’s submissions dated 29 May, 2017 in pursuance of the Daily Order dated 18
May, 2017 is summarized as below:
7.1. At the time of construction of the Transmission Line, the Plot owners of Survey No.
226 of Sailsura obstructed the construction of the Tower. Therefore, MSETCL filed an
Application before the DM, Wardha seeking removal of obstruction. The DM, Wardha,
after hearing the concerned Plot owners, passed the Order on 27.6.2016 directing them
not to create obstacles in the construction of the Transmission Line. Further, the DM
directed MSETCL to pay the compensation to the affected owners as per the GoM
Resolution dated 1.11.2010, as determined by the Mulyanirdharan Committee
constituted under the chairmanship of the DM.
7.2.Thereafter, MSETCL, vide letter dated 29.6.2016 requested the DM to provide the
valuation of the Plot of Gajanan Nagri situated at Survey No. 226 of Sailsura.
7.3.On 8.8.2016, the DM had called a meeting of District Level Committee to decide the
compensation for the affected Plots of Gajanan Nagri at Sailsura because of
construction of the Transmission Line Towers.
7.4. In reference to the meeting dated 8.8.2016, MSETCL issued a letter on 10.8.2016 to
the Assistant Sub-Registrar, Wardha to provide copies of sale deeds executed for last 5
years of Sailsura and nearby areas along with the Ready Reckoner rates, which were
provided on 22.9.2016. MSETCL, vide letter dated 28.9.2016, submitted these
documents to the Town Planning Officer, Wardha, to get the valuation of Plots.
7.5.Because of delay in reply from the Town Planning Officer, MSETCL, vide letter dated
5.11.2016, requested the DM to provide the valuation report so as to enable
disbursement of the compensation to the affected Plot owners.
7.6.The Town Planning Department, Wardha vide letter dated 17.3.2017, asked MSETCL
to deposit Rs. 3,590/ towards fees for valuation of the land. After depositing the fees,
MSETCL vide letter dated 24.3.2017 requested Town Planning Officer, Wardha to
issue a valuation report. Town Planner, Wardha, vide letter dated 24.03.2017, provided
the valuation of the Plot of Gajanan Nagri at Sailsura as Rs.1200/- per sq.m.
7.7.Only 35 sq.m. area of Plot No. 80 is affected by the one leg of Tower Location No.5/0.
However, as per directives of the DM, Wardha vide Order dated 17.12.2016, the
affected area was considered as 68 sq.m. As per the rate of Rs.1200/- per sq.m., the
valuation arrived at is Rs.81, 600/-. However, as per GoM Resolution dated 1.11. 2010,
for non-agricultural land (‘shahri jamin’) the compensation has to be considered at 65%,
which is Rs. 53040/-. In addition to that, costs of Rs.10, 000/- were added as per the
DM’s Order. The total amount of Rs. 63040/- arrived at was duly paid and the
Applicant has accepted it.
7.8.Thus, the Petitioner has received the compensation amount as per the valuation report
submitted by the competent authority. Therefore, the present Revision Application is
devoid of merit and needs to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 9 of 12
Commission’s Analysis and Ruling
8. The District Magistrate, Wardha’s impugned Order dated 17.12.2016 reads, inter
alia, as follows:
“After going through the record, documents, the measurement report and after
hearing the parties, it is seen that one leg of tower location n. 5/0 is coming in the
plot no. 80, area of 35 sq. mtr. of the applicant.
The grievance of the applicant is that the tower cannot be erected on the non-
agricultural plot. The GR dated 1/11/2010 clearly specified the determination of
amount of compensation when the tower is erected on non-agricultural land.
…The work of the non-applicants is in the interest of public in general. The non-
applicants are ready to pay according to rule, the full compensation for the
damages caused to the applicant due to erection of one leg of tower in her plot.
Hence, the request of the applicant for direction to the non-applicants to remove the
tower installed at plot no. 80 cannot be accepted.
Whereas the prayer of the applicant for the payment towards the cost of irreparable
loss caused to the applicant as compensation, with this regard, looking the loss of
the plot area of the applicant it is suggested to the applicant to consider the parallel
area of plot as damaged i.e square plot instead of the triangular area on which one
leg of tower is installed…”
9. The DM, Wardha rejected an application for review of that Order. The present
Revision Petition includes some of the points raised in that application. The
Petitioner seeks that the Transmission Tower and the overhead 220 kV Bhugaon-
Pusad D/C Transmission Line be removed from her NA Plot; or, alternatively, that
compensation be expressly determined considering
a) the area occupied by the base of the Tower, and
b) the area of the clearance required to be maintained under the
Transmission Line.
Moreover, according to the Petitioner, as a result of the erection of the Tower and
the Transmission Line, the entire NA Plot area of 450.51 sq.m. cannot be used for
any construction considering the safety clearances that have to be maintained.
Instead, the DM, Wardha directed that compensation be paid considering only the
area on which one leg of the Tower was erected and the appurtenant land. After
measurement of that area and considering the valuation of the Town Planning
Officer, Wardha in a similar matter, MSETCL has paid compensation of Rs.
53,040/- (plus Rs. 10,000/- Application cost as directed by the DM, Wardha).
10. The following provisions of the EA, 2003, the MEWLR, 2012 and the CEA
Regulations, 2010 are relevant to the present matter:
A) EA, 2003 :
“Works of licensees
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 10 of 12
67. Provision as to opening up of streets, railways, etc.
…(2) The Appropriate Government may, by rules made by it in this behalf,
specify -
…(b) the authority which may grant permission in the circumstances where
the owner or occupier objects to the carrying out of works;
…(e) the determination and payment of compensation or rent to the persons
affected by works under this section;
…(k) the avoidance of public nuisance, environmental damage and
unnecessary damage to the public and private property by such works;…
(3) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under
this section and the rules made thereunder, cause as little damage, detriment
or inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any
damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him…
(4) Where any difference or dispute including amount of compensation under
sub-section 3 arises under this section, the matter shall be determined by the
Appropriate Commission.”
B) MEWLR, 2012 :
“3. Licensee to carry out works –
(1) A licensee may –
(a) carry out works, lay down or place any electric supply Line or other works
in, though, or against, any building, or on, over or under any land where on,
where over or where under any electric supply-Line or works has not already
been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee, with the prior consent of
the owner or occupier of any building or land;
(b) fix any support of overhead Line or any stay or strut required for the
purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead Line on any
building or land or having been so fixed, may alter such support:
Provided that, in case where the owner or occupier of the building or land
raises objections in respect of works to be carried out under this rule, the
licensee shall obtain permission in writing from the District Collector or any
other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, for carrying
out the works:…
(2) When making an order under sub-rule (1), the District Collector or the
officer so authorized, as the case may be, shall fix after considering the
representations of the concerned persons, if any, the amount of compensation,
which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier.
(3) Every order made by a District Collector or an authorized officer under
sub-rule (1) shall be subject to revision by the Commission…
13. Determination and payment of compensation to affected persons –
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 11 of 12
(1) Where the licensee makes default in complying with any of the provisions
of these rules, he shall make full compensation for any loss or damage
incurred by reasons thereof to the person affected, as may be determined by
the District Collector or by any other officer authorised by the State
Government in this behalf, if not agreed mutually between the parties
concerned.
(2) Where any difference and dispute arises as to the amount of compensation
determined under sub-rule (1), the matter shall be determined by the
Commission.”
C) CEA (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010:
- Regulation 58(4) provides that, in case of Lines of voltage exceeding 33
kV, clearance above the ground of the lowest conductor shall not be less
than 5.2 meter plus 0.3 meter for every 33 kV or part thereof by which
the voltage exceeds 33 kV; for a 220 kV overhead Line, the clearance
above the ground of the lowest conductor shall not be less than 7 meters.
- Regulation 61 provides as follows regarding clearances from a building
of Lines of voltages exceeding 650 V:
“61. (1) An overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far
as possible and no building shall be constructed under an existing
overhead line.
2) Where an overhead line of voltage exceeding 650 V passes above or
adjacent to any building or part of the building it shall have on the basis of
maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building
immediately under such line the clearance shall not be less than 3.7 meter
plus 0.3 meter for every 33 kV or part thereof (i.e. for 220 kV Overhead line
clearance above building shall not be less than minimum 5.5 meter).
3) The horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor or any part of
such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind
pressure, be not less than 2.0 meter plus 0.3 meter for every 33 kV or part
thereof (for 220 kV overhead line horizontal clearance from any building
shall not be less than minimum 3.8 meter).”
The Commission also notes that, by its GR dated 31.5.2017 (which superseded the
earlier GR dated 1.11.2010), GoM has stipulated certain modalities and yardsticks
for determination of compensation for such works.
11. MSETCL, being a Transmission Licensee as well as the State Transmission Utility,
is required to undertake the planning, co-ordination, and development of an
efficient Transmission Network for smooth transmission of electricity through the
Intra-State Transmission System. The disputed Transmission Line is a part of
MSETCL’s plan as duly approved by the GoM. MSETCL also has to maintain the
necessary safety clearances as well operational and design norms at the time of
construction of the Transmission Line as per the statutory provisions in this regard.
12. On the Petitioner’s plea for shifting the Transmission Tower and overhead Line
from her NA Plot, the Commission notes that the Line has been commissioned in
MERC Order in Case No. 56 of 2017 Page 12 of 12
August, 2016, a year and a half ago. The Tower on the Petitioner’s land cannot be
considered in isolation as the locations of the other Towers of the Line on either side
of the disputed Tower have been frozen. Basic technical issues and potential threats
to the Transmission System would be involved in shifting that Tower. Any change in
its location would have a cascading effect on the entire alignment of the Line. Hence,
the shifting of the Tower is not a feasible option.
13. As regards the extent to which the NA Plot of the Petitioner is affected and the
consequential compensation, the Commission is of the view that, due to the lattice
structure of the Tower and the mandatory safety clearances that are required to be
maintained, not only the land occupied by and appurtenant to the Tower but also
below the overhead Line cannot be utilized for construction to that extent. That
would also jeopardise the safety of persons and of the Tower itself. However, the
DM, Wardha’s Order takes into account only the area on which the single leg of the
Tower stands and some area immediately appurtenant to it, and also has not
determined the specific amount of compensation to be paid, as statutorily required.
The area involved has been subsequently determined by MSETCL as 68 sq.m.
considering the principle laid down by the DM, Wardha and paid compensation for
that area as per the valuation of the Town Planning Officer.
14. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of mutual agreement on the
compensation, the Commission directs the DM, Wardha (in his capacity as District
Collector, as envisaged by the MEWLR, 2012) to revisit the issue of compensation
considering the factors set out in this Order. He shall have a survey of the affected
area conducted in the presence of both parties and determine the specific amount of
the balance compensation payable, if any, as far as practicable within three months
and after hearing the parties. MSETCL shall pay the compensation so determined
within a month thereafter.
The Petition of Smt. Prabha Shankarrao Dhote in Case Nos. 56 of 2017 stands
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Deepak Lad) (Azeez M. Khan)
Member Member
