Supreme Court of India “Verdict”
“Hanging farmers”
by Transmission Lines is “legal”
Join “Signature” Campaign
to Support 6 Million Farmers
“Claim for damages to their landed Property”
Due Transmission Towers & Lines by
Power Grid Corporation of India &OTHERS.
******
Report, By P. Chengal Reddy, Chief Adviser,
Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations.(C.I.F.A)
Flat No. 209, Vijaya Towers, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad –
500028
E-mail: [email protected], www.indianfarmers.org
INDEX
S. No
Details / Reference
Page No.
1
Forward:-by P. Chengal Reddy.“HANGINGFARMERS BY TRANSMISSION
LINES IS LEGAL --Proclaims Supreme Court of India:-
1-2
2
Farmers Right to Property. Denied by Supreme Court. (2016).
3
3
What does 2016,S.C, Judgment conveys to farmers/common man!
3-4
4
Interpretation of Statues.” General law yields to Special
Law
4
5
Consequence of S.C. 2016, Judgment to 6 MILLION DUMB
FARMERS!
4-5
6
Why Supreme Court of India has to entertain petition under
PIL:-
5
7
Pay Diminution of land value-Directs S.C. 2007.High Tension
Transmission Towers and Lines will cause damage to Farmers Landed
Property.
5
8
Payment of 100% Diminution of land value – Kerala High Court,
2014.
6
9
Payment of diminution of land value without evidence CRP.no.541
of 2011-A dated 16-06-2014 Kerala State Electricity Board vs
Baghavan.
6
10
Electricity Act 2003. Objectives &Special features?
6
11
Act 2003, purpose of Works of Licensee Rules 2006?
6-7
12
Act 2003 Section 164, Works of Licensee Rules 2006 Rule (4),
Exemption discriminating between private property /land owner and
public sector Railways?
7
13
Act 2003 is Section 164, Unconstitutional and Violation of
Principals of Natural Justice?
7-8
14
Act 2003 – Sections -Self-contradictory and Conflicting
Provisions?
8
15
Act 2003, Section 145, barring Civil Court jurisdiction: -
8
16
Act. 2003 Conflicting Sections 164 and 145.
8
17
Act 2003, Section173. Inconsistency in laws:
8-9
18
Act 2003, Section174. Act to have over riding effect.
9
19
Act 2003,175. Provisions of this act to be in addition to and
not in derogation of other Laws :-
9
20
Act 2003, Section 2, Sub -Section 2 – (76) Definitions:
9
21
Act 2003. Section 2, sub-section 72. Transmission lines
9
22
Act 2003, Section 62. Fixing tariff -Powers of Appropriate
Commission
10
23
How did Power Grid manipulate to get exemption from following
Rules 2006 to evade compensation for damages to private land
owners?
10
24
How did Power Grid manipulate to avoid following Rules 2006?
10-11
25
Act 2003, procedure and time required for completion of a
projects?
11
26
Telegraph Act 1885.Outrageous provision under section 10.
Violation of Article 300.A.
11
27
Telegraph Act 1885, violation of Indian Constitutional
provisions?
11
28
Land damage assessment by Transmission Towers/lines under
Telegraph Act 1885, unconstitutional, illegal, Idealistic and
Outrageous?
12
29
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd biggest swindler of legally
entitled compensation of million Farmers!
12
30
Supreme Court of India Judgment. No.10951 of 2016 dated
14-12-2016.Illegal and unconstitutional pronouncements?
12
31
The Judgment (S.C.10951 of 2016) No need to follow
procedure/Rules 2006 for getting consent of land owner while
damaging his property!
13
32
Importance of Procedure—Supreme Court of India (1987) and United
States Supreme Court (1942) Judgments:
13-14
33
The Judgment ( S. C. 10951 of 2016 )and Telegraph Act 1885
Section 10. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY and Compensation not considered?
14
34
The Judgment (S.C. Civil 10951 of 2016) fix compensation under
Telegraph Act 1885 by District Judge?
15
35
Clarification on supreme court judgment of 10951 of 2016 on
consent of land owner and fixing of compensation by district
judge.
15-19
36
Conflicting Judgments by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and
Supreme Court on the issue of JUDICIAL POWERS OF REGULATORY
COMMISSIONS. Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATC) Case No.
2011, Appeal. NO.83 0F 2010, DT.07-09-2011.
19
37.
Distinctions between Comprehensive compensation (Act 2003) and
Restricted compensation (Act 1910). Judgment by Appellate Tribunal
for Electricity. No.135 0of 2012 dated 14-11-2013.
19
38
Compensation for land damages. Proceedings issued by District
Collector under Act 1885 -Contradictions and illegal.
20
39
S.C. judgment a telegraph authority cannot be conferred with
powers under electricity act. 1970:11-09-1966- sc.air.1970 SC 491
(1970)3 SCC 851 –
20
40
HC judgment--DISTINCTION BETWEEN 19TH CENTURY TELEGRAPH ACT,
1885 AND 21STCENTURY ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.
20-21
41
High Court. JUDGMENT: -DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY- 19THCENTURY &
21ST CENTURY: -
21
42
H.C. Judgment RIGHT TO RESIST OR OBSTRUCT PRIOR INTIMATION IS
ESSENTIAL. Case
22
43
S.C. Judgment- DEFENITION of Right to Property. S.C. Civil .2111
-15-1984 in 1994. Jillu Bhai Nan Bhai vs State of Gujarat.
22
44
ECLARATION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY AS A HUMAN RIGHT – SUPREME COURT
DECISION. S.C. 2011 :- SC.SLP.(Civil) 28034/2011 State of Haryana
vs Mukesh Kumar.
22
45
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY RIGHT” –Supreme Court of India. SC
1953:-State of West Bengal vs Subodh Gopal Bose. 17-12-1953
-SC.1954. AIR. 92.1954, SCR. 587.
23
46
Definition of substantial deprivation:S UPREME COURT DECISION.
SCR (1954).674. Dwarka Das vs Sholapur Spinning mills held,
23
47
S.C Judgment. Directions/guidelines for assessing land value /
compensation. Case No. 3148-3157/2000 dated 07-01-2007. Atma Singh
Vs State of Haryana.
23
48
Applicability of L.A. Act 2013 provisions for compensation for
lands damaged due to High Tension Transmission Towers and
Lines.
24
49
SC 21 016--13-07-2016. Tukaram Kane vs Maharashtra Industrial
Development Market Delayed compensation to be awarded at current
market valu
25
50
Unauthorized and Illegal Guidelines on compensation by Ministry
of Power in 2015.
25
51
Cruel Behavior of officials Towards Farmers :-
26
52
Denigration of farmers status in social circles due diminution
of land/property value:
26
53
If Constitutional Institutional ABANDON farmers, what are their
option?
26
54
Unethical Conduct of Public Utility-Transmission Companies
27
55
Collectors Illegal proceedings under Act 1885
27
56
Misguiding High Courts by filing false affidavits
27-29
57
Power Grid filing misleading affidavits before WORLD BANK:-
29-30
58
Prayer
31
CHRONOLOGICAL / RUNNING INDEX.
S.NO
Annexure No.
Description of Document
Date of Document
Page No.
1
Chronological Papers
1-31
2
A -1
Photo of Telegraph Pole
32
3
A -2
Photo of 400 KV High Tension Tower
33
4
A -3
Map ( 2 acres)
34
5
A -4
Power Grid Corporation of India 5 years Summary
35
6
A -5
Power Grid Corporation of India 5 years Summary
36
7
A -6
Power Grid Corporation of India 5 years Summary
37
8
A -7
Works of Licensees Rules –2006 (Issued by GOVT of India)
38-48
9
A -8
2003 G.O.
49-50
10
A -9
New Procedure exemption
51-54
11
A -10
Land Acquisition Act. 2013/15.
55-59
12
A -11
Guidelines by GOI, Dated. 15.10.2015 Fixing compensation
60-69
13
A -12
Power Grid Notice 2013
70
14
A -13
Power Grid Notice 2017
71
15
A -14
Nellore Collector Order
72-74
16
A -15
2010-2011 Agriculture Census
75-76
1. Forward:-by P. Chengal Reddy.“HANGING FARMERS BY TRANSMISSION
LINES IS LEGAL --Proclaims Supreme Court of India :-
a) EliteIndians:-Imagine after 72years of Independence a
transmission company constructing400 KV,Towers and lines in South
Extension, Delhi or Marine drive, Mumbai or Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad without consent of land owners consent and refusing
compensation? What will be the reaction from elite Indian
politicians, IAS, IPS, High Court Judges and Industrialists? Will
they tolerate misuse and abuse powers by Power Grid? Certainly
not?
b) Then why farmers are cheated and exploited by Power Grid?
Construction of Telegraph Poles/Lines and Transmission Towers/
Linesare equated as one and the same. The transmission companies
can enter into any farmers lands without their consent. Company
need not pay Compensation. So declared by Ministry of Powers, G.O.I
and upheld by Supreme Court of India. Civil Appeal.No.10951 of
2016, Dt.14-12-2016.Power Grid is given telegraph authority to
enter into any property (under Act 1885,Section 10) by Ministry of
Power G.O. I. Under section 164 of Electricity Act 2003.S.C.
declares that the Power Grid need not take consent of the land/
property owner (Para, 21,22,23 & 28). If the owner feels his
property is damaged and want compensation, farmer should file suit
before the District Judge.
c) David and goliath – Comparing -Telegraph and
Electricity(Annexure – 1) :-A Telegraph Post (Pole) /line)(Annexure
– 2) needs is 3 to 4 Meters (10-12 feet), height of 17/18 feet
weighing 200 to250 Kg. It looks like LILLIPUT before a 1000 Sq
meters land occupying monster structure of 400 KV Tower weighing
15/16 Tones with 4 gigantic legs to support the weight of tower and
withstand 100 kmwind /cyclone velocity of massive cables at 70 feet
height. Land under lines (Right of Way) is 46 + 5.5 (51.5 Sq. Metes
clearance. One KM of 400 K.V, lines damages (DEMUNISHES), 6/7
Hectors (15/16 acers). Small farmers owners of 86% of land. Damage
due to construction of400 KV towers /lines on 2 Hectors land, will
fragment it into 3 pieces, 5000 Meters Underneath (R O W). 2500
Meters on both sides(Annexure – 3) Famers will loose permanent
Futuristic Development Right.
d) A Government Corporate-- Farmers Oppressor:-Power Grid
Corporation of India (Power Grid )It claims that it has powers to
enter into any private land to carryout works without owners
consent or payment of compensation. Power Grid is a Company doing
business for profits. It is licensed by Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission which fixes transmission wheeling charges.
Power Grid during 5 years period (2014-15 to 2017-2018) has
declared profit of Rs. 31,184.2 Crores. Dividend paid Rs. 7, 851.36
Crores. Tax is Rs. 8,337.29 Crores ((Annexure -4,5,6). During the
period lands damaged are 6,15,792 Acers (1,48,390 Hectors) land and
Towers built 1,20,975 (average 2.5 Towers per CKM). None (Not even
one) of the farmers in the country were paid Compensation, either
for total damage under towers or substantial damage under lines.(
Extracts. Power Grid Annual Report 2017-2018 (5 Years Summery).
e) The Questions raised by farmers (i) Can fame claim their Land
is considered as property under Constitution of India? (ii) Can
damage to their lands under Telegraphs poles and Electricity
Transmission Towers be equated?(iii) Are farmers are entitled for
prior intimation before a company entering into their lands and
causing damage to their property ? (iv) Are farmers entitled for
compensation? (v)If so, when and by whom? (vi)How should the
compensation be fixed? can it be done by Government uniformly or
has it to be location specific?
f) Constraints for farmers:-Farmers are incapable of
complication created by transmission companies in collision with
administrators in Government of India and State governments.
Ministers, MP’s, MLA’s are unable to understand the complicities’
of the issues. Judiciary both in High Courts and Supreme Court have
self imposedrestrictions and inability to clary contradictory
judgments.
g) Unsuccessful efforts :-Since 2003 passing of Electricity Act,
transmission towers/ lines are drawn permanently damaging over 60
Lakh acers farm land owned by same number of farmers. These farmers
are all small, illiterate and have no economic resources. They are
not capable to approach judicial institutions High Courts or even
Regulatory Commissions or legislative institutions for claiming
compensation. Farmers Right to property is violated. Right for
futuristic development is permanently denied.( S.C. Ref.
No.3148/2000.Dated 07-01-2007 ). Since 2013 efforts are made by
Sri. Ch. Venugopal Rao, Secretary, Federation of Farmers
Associations, Sri. Mangati Gopal Reddy, President FFA,
othersincluding myself to get legally entitled compensation for
these millions of farmers across the country. Letters,petitions,
representation, P.I.L,s have failed to get results. The Supreme
Court has further complicated the issue by contradictory Judgments
(Details in Report)).
h) Seeking Supportfor campaign:- It is placed in public domain
seeking support of policy makers, experts, lawyers, media,
scientists, children of farmers and others. Please write your
comments/ suggestions and send E mail,enclosing the REPORTor your
Views/opinion to President of India, New Delhi
(E-mail:[email protected] )Chief Justice,Supreme Court of
India, New Delhi ( E-mail:[email protected]) Prime Minister of
India. New Delhi (E-mail:[email protected] , [email protected])
Speaker Lok Sabha, New Delhi , E-mail:
[email protected], Chairman, Rajya Sabha, New Delhi, E-
mail: [email protected], Secretary General Chief Executive
Officer of the Commission, New Delhi, E-mail: [email protected].
For clarification on the above send
[email protected].
2. Farmers Right to Property.Denied by Supreme Court. (2016)
Right to Property is deprived to millions of Farmers due to
contradictory judgments by Supreme Court of India:-Civil appeal.
No.10951 of 2010, Dated: 14-12-2016.Power Grid Corporationof India
Vs Century Textile les &Industries The judgment held as
follows:-
(Para 21).Section 10 of telegraph Act 1885 empowers the
telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines
under,over,along or across and posts in or any immovable property
--- Because of Power of telegraph authority under Section 164 is
conferred on Power Grid ,it can construct Towers and Lines damaging
and diminishing land /property value without land owner (Property
Owner) consent.
(Para28) Civil Appeal No.8342 of 2009.The appellant in this case
also raised the issue of taking prior consent from it, as the owner
of the land, before laying electricity transmission lines. This
argument has been rejected by us while dealing with the appeal of
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.Accordingly, this appeal is
also dismissed.
(Para.26) We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels
that it is entitled for any compensation, the appropriate course of
action is to file suit before the concerned district judge for this
purpose.
3. What does the S.C.2016, judgment conveys to farmers/common
man!
a) Tower/lines can be constructed on any land without owner
consent:-(Para21) and(Para 28)
Power Grid Corporation of India is a licensee under Electricity
Act 2003. it is Company registered under Company Act. Its business
is transmission of electricity. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission fixes wheeling charges for transmission of electricity.
It is constructing thousands of KM, Transmission Towers and lines
across the country every year. Power Grid declares profits pay
dividend and taxes. Power Grid is conferred with powers of
telegraph authority (Under Act 1885). They can construct
Transmission towers and lines on any land without seeking
priorconsent of the land owner (Property owner ). Herein question
is will towers / lines cause damage? Ifso how much damage done by
the towers and lines do to the land value? Is the damage nominal or
substantial? If the damage is substantial amounting to deprivation
of total value? If so does the damage amounts to deprivation of
Right to Property?.
b) Property owner has to file suit for damages caused to his
land by a company.(Para 26)
Is it legal for Supreme Court of India to direct land owner to
file suit for damages caused by a company?If a suit has to be filed
who has to pay expense for court fees, lawyers fees and other
expenses?
c) Land owner has to prove to the DISTRICT JUDGE that the
property is damaged!
d) Damage to Land-property due to Towers and lines is of Right
to Property (Human Right)
e) Can Power Grid, a profitmaking company in a democratic India
cannot damage private property without procedure and payment of
compensation
f) The Act 2003 is a special Act, where as Act 1885 is a general
Act. As per established Law LATIN MAXIM OF GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS
NON DEROGANT -i.e., general law yields to special law should they
operate in the same field on same subject The S.C. judgment
No.90151 of 2016 is illegal and unconstitutional?
g) S.C. cannot direct land owner to follow Telegraph Act 1885 to
claim compensation by filing suit in District Judge. Land is
damaged due to construction of Towers and lines by a Transmission
company doing business. Towers and Lines are infrastructure
activity in a country for economic development. Towers and lines
are similar to construction of Irrigation Project or Roads. There
is nothing SACRED ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE or Imperative in the large
public interest as stated in the S.C. Judgment. Under Constitution
of India RIGHT TO PROPERTY (which includes farmers land) is
guaranteed to citizens of India. The property / land of any citizen
can acquired or damaged by FOLLOWING PROCEDURE – LAW – PAYING
COMPENSETION. Here in the Supreme Court Judgment is empowering a
company TO DAMAGE citizens PROPERTY WITH following DUE PROCESS OF
LAW or anyPROCEDURE ! More over the Judgment directs the property
looser to file suit for recovery of compensation through District
Judge. The Judgement must be clarified by the Supreme Court. The
Judges seems to have been misguided on the issue. In the above case
the land damage is not the issue at all. The land belongs to
Government. The land was given on Leese to a private company for
extract to mineral there for the judgement seems to have been given
without understanding (I) Processor (II) damage to the land (III)
Compensation and other issues. The judges have failed to realize
that India of 2016 is a democracy and that Country has a
constitution which is binding for all the Citizens. More over under
constitution property can not be acquired or damaged without due
process of Law. This judgement must be clarified on all the issue
raised herein.
4. Interpretation of Statues.” General Law yields to Special
Law.
Electricity Act 2003, is a special Act of Independent India’s
Parliament,where as Telegraph Act 1885 is general act made by
colonial British rules. The Supreme Court of India, held that
Telegraph Act 1885 cannot has precedence over Electricity Act
2003.“ (2014 ) 3.S.C.R.1. Civil appeal No.336 of 2003 Dated
19-02-2014.
5. Consequence of S.C. 2016,Judgment to 6 MILLION DUMB
FARMERS!
Million small farmerslands are damaged without following
procedure and payment of compensation?These farmers across the
country suddenly one day a massive transmission tower is
constructed and lines drawn over his 1 Hector land. Trees are cut
and crops damaged while digging foundation for towers and
transporting steel, cement, wires etc. farmers are aghast as to who
are these people? How can anybody damage his crops and land without
his consent! He has not received any notice or information!He is
told due to electrometric effects lands under tower/ lines cannotbe
used for constructing house or godown or sheds. He cannot even
raise mango /citrus garden!He realizes that there is no purchaser
because the land has lost its value! The ownership remains in
farmers name but he is not eligible for Bank loans nor the land can
be mortgaged? His landed property is damaged without his permission
or payment of compensation!
Farmer are furious but he doe’s not know from whom to get
compensation or complain? This calamity has caused untold miseries
to 60 Lakhs illiterate,ignorant small farmers across all states in
India since 2003. The lines are constructed in rural areas mostly
on agriculture lands, owned by 86% small and marginal farmers.
Transmission companies construct 400 KV, Tower weighing 15 M.T,
under which 1000Sq. Meters land is DAMAGEDmaking it permanently
unfit for cultivation.Underneath 400K.V, lines is per K.M, an area
of 15 Acers (6 Hectors)looses its value permanently and prohibiting
it for future development ( LAND VALUE SUBSTENTIALLY
DEMINIUSHED”).
6. WhySupreme Court of India has to entertain petition
underPIL:-
Refer Judgment by Justice Bhagwati.
“The weaker sections of Indian humanity have been deprived of
justice for long years; they had no access to justice on account of
their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy. They are not aware of the
rights and benefits conferred on them by the Constitution and the
Law. On account of their socially and economically disadvantaged
position they lack the capacity to assert their rights, and they do
not have the material resources with which to enforce their social
and economic entitlements and combat exploitation and
injustice.===
7. Pay diminution of land value -Directs. S.C.2007.High Tension
Transmission Towers and Lines willcause damage to Farmers Landed
Property.
SC.No. 650 dared 18 -05-2007 Kerala Electricity Board vs
Levisha, directed for fixing pay compensation for DIMINUTION OF
LAND VALU UNDER TOWERS AND LINES :-
Para-9. BOTH TELEGRAPH LINES AND ELECTRICAL LINES ARE REQUIRED
TO BE DRAWNOVER THE AGRICULTURE LAND/OR OTHER PROPERTIES BELONGING
TO THIRD PARTIES. IN DRAWING SUCH LINES, ENTIRE LAND CANNOT BE
ACQUIRED BUT THE EFFECT THEREOFF WOULD BE DIMINUTION OF VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY OVER WHICH SUCH LINE IS DRAWN
(Para-10) The situs of the land, the distance between the high
voltage electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line
thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes
over a small track of land or through the middle of the land and
other similar relevant factors in our opinion would be
determinative. The value of the land would also be relevant factor.
The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose
substantive right to use the PROPERTY for the purpose for which the
same was meant to be used.
8. Payment of 100%, diminution of land value – Kerala High
Court, 2014.
26- 05-2014 Kerala High Court. KSEB vs Subhadra kumara. No.432of
2010. Small plot 100% compensation.
Para6. ENTIRE EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY IS SEEN EFFECTEDBY DRAWING
LINE.THEREFORE I FIND THAT, BEING A SMALL PLOT, THE COURT BELOW CAN
BY JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS AFFECTED AREA.
9. Payment of diminution of land value without evidence
CRP.no.541 of 2011-A dated 16-06-2014 Kerala State Electricity
Board vs Baghavan.
(Para 5, and 7.) Coming to the market value, it is true that no
documentary evidence had been produced by the respondent to show
the current market value. But injurious affection by drawing of
electric lines is a reality which is
approved by the Apex Court in K.S.E.B. VS.Livisha 2007(3)
KLTI(SC) In the above decision, the Apex Court held as follows:
“The sites of the land, the distance between the high voltage
electricity line laid there over, the extent of the line thereon as
also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a
small track of land or through the middle of the land and other
similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The
value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the
land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive
right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was
meant to be used. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit
bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case.”
10. Electricity Act 2003. Objectives &Special features?
Electricity Act 2003 is made by Parliament keeping in view India
a democracy andin need for economic growth for which ENERGY
generation,transmission and distribution are important. G.O.I
realizing Power Sector growth cannot be met by State Electricity
Boards enacted the Special Act 2003 with outstanding features to
develop it as efficient, independent and profitable. It has made
provisions of Section 3 (National Policy), Sections 7 (Generation),
Section 12 (Licensing),Section 25 (Transmission), Section 67 (Works
of Licensees Rules), Section 76 (Regulatory Commissions), Section
110 (Appellate Tribunal for Electricity), Section 158
(Arbitration), Section 159 (Protection of Railways) and Section 173
(Over riding powers over all other Acts) .Herein section 164 (
Exemption in CERTAIN CASES) is also included.
11. Act 2003, purpose of Works of Licensee Rules, 2006?
(Annexure - 7)
The works of licensee Rules 2006 are issued by G.O.I.
Notification GSR 217 (E) Dated 18th April 2006. They are made
keeping in view WORKS require land and that LAND IS PROPERTY, and
that PROPERTY IS A RIGHT OF CITIZEN and it isguaranteed by
Constitution. And that RIGHT cannot be deprived without following
due process law procedure and compensation.Rules 2006 are
procedures to be followed for carrying out works. Rule 3 (1)(a) to
carry out works, ---- with consent of owner/ occupier of any land
or building. 3 (1)(b) if the owner raises objects .3 (2)
TheDistrict Collector, so authorized , shall fix , after
considering representation of the concerned persons , if any , the
amount of compensation or of annual rent or of both which should be
paid to the owner and Rule 3 (3) has made provision of Collectors
orders –SHALL BE SUBJECTTO REVESION BY THE COMMISSION.Rules3(
4)“NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWERS CONFERRED
UPON ANY LICENSEE UNDER SECTION 164 “. These rules are applicable
to Power Grid, licensed by Electricity Regulatory Commission to
conduct works (Construct Towers and lines)in Private lands and
Government lands/ properties, Railways, roads, canals and
others.
12. Act 2003 Section 164, Works of Licensee Rules 2006 Rule (4),
Exemption discriminating between private property (land owner) and
public property Railways?
Provision:-Rule 3(4)Nothing Contained in this rule shall affect
the powers conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the
act.
Section 164 of Act 2003 :-Exercise of powers of telegraph
Authority in “CERTAIN CASES”
-It can be seen that Section 164 is discriminating by
authorizing POWER GRID WITH TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY by exempting
following Rules 2006, of Rule.3.(1)(a) 3 (1)(b) and 3 (2)only for
PRIVATE LANDS /PROPERTY / CITIZENS. In a blatant and highly
partisan manner Government institutions of railways, Roads are
exempted, under Rules (4) WORKES AFFECTING STREETS, RAILWAYS,
TRAMWAYS, CANAL OR WATERWAYS. Rule 4 (1) Where the exercise of any
of the powers of a licensee in relation to the execution of any
works -------railways, tramways, canals ------a notice in writing,
not less than 15 days before commencing the execution of works
describing the proposed work –. Under Rule 4 (2) If the repairing
intimates to the license that it disapproves such works ------ the
licensee shall appeal to the appropriate Commission =====Under Rule
4 (4) and Rule 4 (5)Rule 6 (5), Rule 7 (3&4) (6) the Licensee
is directed to approach Appropriate Commission and get the issue
resolved.
13. Act 2003 is Section 164, Unconstitutionaland Violation of
Principals of Natural Justice?
There are many contradictions in Electricity Act Provisions 164
and 173. The Act 2003 being a special act has made provision of
Section 173,where in only three following Act hare given
precedence:-(i) The Consumer protection Act 1986 (ii)The Atomic
Energy Act 1962 and (iii) The Railways Act 1989. What is herein is
Section 164 a emergency clause included to have overriding power
EXERCISE OF POWERS OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CASE is
misused and abused only in regard to PRIVATE PROPERTY , owned by
CITIZENS It is proved that it is done to make huge profits (i)
Following procedure by The Transmission companies (ii) It is
enabling transmission companies to EVADE / AVOID / DEPRIVE land
owners mostly small farmers of their legally entitled compensation
(iii) It is enabling Power Grid corporation of India a Government
of India company to declare huge profits and also pay Tax (iv) It
is done in collusions with officials in Ministry of Power
Government of India and also State Government such as Department of
Power Government of Andhra Pradesh as detailed above (vii) The
Companies have large number of Officials from Central and State
Government working as Chairman’s, Managing Directors and also as
board members of transmission companies. (viii) The collusion is to
enable shareholders owned by people connected with transmission
company to earn huge dividends.
14. Act 2003 – Sections -Self-contradictory and Conflicting
Provisions?
Act 2003 Section 3,4,5,6, National Electricity policy and plan.
Provision for licensing of transmission company is provided under
section 14 by Appropriate Commission, not by Governments. So also
transmission activities are covered under Sections 22 to 33.
Section 67 has made ample provision to licensee for carrying out
Works of Licensee Rules. The A Regulatory Commissions are
established under Section 76, to 97 with details of administering
transmission companies, including wheeling charges. A supreme body
of APPLEATRE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY is established for oversee
all activities of ENERGY sector in time bound manner.
15. Act 2003,Section 145, barring Civil Court Jurisdiction:
-
No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceedings in respect of any matter which an assessing officer to
in section 126 or ANY APPLEATE AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN section 127
or adjudicated officer appointed under this act is empowered by or
the adjudicating officer appointed under this act is empowered by
or under this act to determine and no injunction shall be granted
by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or
to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this
act.
16. Act. 2003Conflicting Sections 164 and 145.
2003, section 145 prohibits role of CIVIL COURTS in all Act 2003
activities.If so how can section 164 , Act 1885 Section 10 of
telegraph authority directs the land owner to seek compensation
from District judge? It is obvious that the provision of 164 are
made only for emergency of in case of Natural calamity.
17. Act 2003,Section173. Inconsistency in laws Act 2003 will
prevail over others.
Nothing contained in this Act or any Rule or regulation made
their under or any instrument having effect by virtue of this act,
rule or regulation shall have effect in so far as it is
inconsistent with any otherprovisions of the consumer protection
act 1962 68 of 1986 or the Atomic Energy Act 1962 33 of 1962 or
Railways Act 1989 24 of 1989. The Act 2003 has exempted only above
Acts from the preview of Act 2003? If so how can exemption given
under Rules 2006 Rule.3. (4) be given to avoid Rules for Farmers
landed property? It is held by Courts that special Act 2003 has
precedents over other Acts including Telegraph Act 1885.
18. Act 2003,Section. 174. Act to have overridingeffect :-
Save as other wise provided in this section 173, the provisions
of this Act shall have effect not withstanding any thing
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time
being in farce or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any
law other than this Act. This Section is contrary to section 164
authorizing telegraph authority?How can such exemption be give only
to avoid following procedure and payment of compensation to private
land owners? The Ministry Of power government of Indiahas extended
undue favors to Government companies. It is to be declared as
illegal by the Courts and also Parliament
19. Act 2003,175. Provisions of this act to be in addition to
and not in derogation of other Laws:-
The provisions of this act to be in addition to and not in
derogation of other laws. While Section 175 has included in the Act
2003 passed by parliament, Ministry of Energy, Government of India
gave exemption. The executive has deliberately conspired to avoid
following Parliament enactment which is illegal and violation of
Parliament supremacy, violation of Constitution. Hence needs to
rectified.
20. Act 2003, Section 2, Sub -Section 2 – (76) Definitions: -
Wheelingcharges.
“WHHELING” means the operation whereby the distribution and
associated facilities if a transmission licensee or distribution
licensee, as the case may be, are used by another person for
conveyance of electricity ON PAYMENT OF CHARGES to be determined
under section 62. Power grid a transmission company is paid
wheeling charges as per Act 2003 provisions. But the Company is
exempted from payment of compensation to the land owners on whose
lands the transmission company is doing business and earning
profits.
21. Act 2003.Section 2,sub-section 72. Transmission lines.
Transmission lines means allHIGH PRESSURE CABLES AND
OVERHEADlines transmitting electricity. Commonsense teaches that
Cables transmitting Electricity have to be established on Towers
and that they are dangerous. Electric cables / towers are compared
with telegraph lines and poles and power Grid is authorized to
construct works without following procedure or payment of
compensation. This is done by Ministry of energy, Government of
India. This contention is accepted by High Courts and also Supreme
Court of India!
22. Act 2003,Section 62. Fixing tariff -Powers of Appropriate
Commission: -
Definition of Tariff –The Appropriate Commission shall determine
the tariff accordance with provisions of this act for (a)---(b)
transmission of electricity (c)---(d)---. The Regulatory Commission
are established under Act 2003 to fix tariff. But the same
regulatory Commissions are exempted from fixing Compensation by
Government and supported by Courts!
23. How did Power Grid manipulate to get exemption from
following Rules 2006to evade compensation for damages to private
land owners?
Rule 2006 Rules 3 (4 )Exemption is given from following Rules
2006 under Section 164 of Electricity Act 2003. Section 164
“EXERCISE OF POWERS OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CASES”. The
appropriate Government may, by order in writing, for placing of
electric lines or electrical plant for transmission of electricity
or for the purpose of telephonic or telegraphic communication
necessary for the proper co-ordination of works, confer upon any
officer, licensee or any other person engages in the business of
supplying electricity under this act, subject to such conditions
and restrictions, if any, as the appropriate government may think
fit to impose and to the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act
1885, any of powers which the telegraph authority possesses under
that act with respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts for
the purpose of telegraph establishes or maintained, by the
government or to be established or maintained”.
24. Power Grid manipulation to avoid followingRules 2006?
The Ministry of Power, GOI, issued a GO.No.1148,dated 24-12-2003
giving exemption to Power Grid. (Annexure - 8).
Ministry Power used power conferred on it under Section
164,underTelegraph Act, 1885, section 10,empowering telegraph
authorityon Power Grid. Based on Section 164,New procedure.
(Annexure - 9) The new procedure is Power Grid will seek exemption
from Rules 2006,by writing letter to Ministry of Power giving
details of each scheme. Simultaneously Power Grid will be advertise
scheme details in 2 newspapers. After expiry of 2 months of
advertisement power grid write letter to Ministry enclosing
advertisement and a proforma duly filled seeking exemption from
rules 2006.An undersecretary in the Ministry of Power GOI,will
grant exemption. The administration has made mockery of Act 2003
provisions by issuing executive order, making the objects of Act
2003 purposeless.
The exemption was used from 2003 to avoid following procedure
under rules2006 and also deny paymentof compensation only for
private lands. Since 2003 Power Grid avoided following procedure of
2006 rules for getting consent under Rule 3(1)(a) 3(1) (b) and 3
(2). The exemption is used only to avoid payment of compensation
for lands damaged to PRIVATE PROPERTY, who are mostly small
farmers.
Reading of Section 164 “VESTING OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY IN
CERTAIN CASES “. What defines CERTAIN CASES.?A specificscheme or in
case of emergency! Herein every transmission project has components
of (i) Benefits of scheme(ii) Conducting detailed Survey of lines
including documenting survey number, name of land owner, damaged
area Tower of lines / line length (iii) Avoid urban, areas, towns,
cities, irrigation projects, (vi),places of historical importance
and religious places, (v) Prepare Cost estimates (vi) Mobilizing
finances (vii) Awarding contract (viii) Implementation (xv) Obtain
permission / approvals from governments, institutions such as
Railways, canals, High ways, forests, ( (x)getting environmental
clearances etc.Time taken for each Transmission
25. Act 2003, procedure and time required for completion ofa
projects?
It takes 4to 5 YEARS for completing all formalities and charge
the line. Power Grid while implementing a SCHME has sufficient time
to follow Rules 2006 of getting consent of land owners or seek
District Collectors assistance in settling compensation and also
pay compensation. But Power Grid misused the provisions of Section
164.
26. Telegraph Act 1885.Outrageous provision under section 10.
Violation of Article 300.A.
The DAMAGE TO PROPERTY IS DONE BY POWER GRID FOR BUSINESS, under
powers of telegraph authority (Act 1885). While the damage is done
by company to land owner, the looser of property/ farmer has to
claim compensation from District Judge. This provision of exemption
from Rules 2006,under Section 164 and powers of telegraph authority
under Act 1885 is outrageous. These provisions are insult to people
of India, to Constitution of India and to all the Constitutional
institutions of parliament, administration and Judiciary. The
exemption is given deliberately to DEPRIVE,CHEAT AND EVADE PAYMENT
TO LAKHS OF FARMERS OF THEIR LEGALLY ENTITLED CONPENSETION FOR
DAMAGE TO THEIR PROPERTY.
27. Telegraph Act 1885,violation of Indian Constitutional
provisions!
(i)Act 1885 is made for strategic purpose of communication
specially on LAW & ORDER by British. (ii)It has no provision of
DAMAGE – GETTING CONSENT- COMPENSETION – or REVESION.(iii) More
over British has common sense that TELEGRAPH POST -LINE are small
structures and do not cause damage and arelocatedbesides Railway
tracks or Roads. Therefore did not make rules or prescribed any
procedure. (iv) It has no provision for seeking consent of land/
property owner. (v) Nor it authorized Collector to fixcompensation.
(vi)There is no Regulatory Commission or ate Authority (Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity) It is obvious that Telegraph Lines /
posts (poles) do not cause any damage to landed property.(vii) They
are located besides railway tracks or Roads.(viii) As there will be
no damage to private property, Act 1885 has not made provisions of
rules or damages or other provisions as are provided in 21st
Century Electricity Act 2003. (ix)The Act 1885 is regulated by
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, whereas Power Grid is licensed by Regulatory
Commission and is company involved in business.
28. Land damageassessment by Transmission Towers/lines under
Telegraph Act 1885, Unconstitutional, Illegal, Idealistic and
Outrageous?
Words of PROPERTY – DAMAGE – PROCEDURE -COMPENSETION are not
included in Act 1885. British ruling India were only interested in
laying telegraph lines by besides railwayTrack which sufficient
land earmarked for telegraph lines.A Telegraph Post (Pole) /line)
area is 3 to 4 Meters (10-12 feet), height of 17/18 feet weighing
200 to250 Kg. It looks like LILLIPUT before a 1000 Sq meters land
occupying structure ofmassive 400 KV Tower weighing 15/16 Tones
with 4 gigantic legs to support the weight of tower and withstand
wind/ gales /cyclone velocity of massive cables at 70 feet height.
Land under lines (Right of Way) is 46 + 5.5 (51.5 Sq. Metes
clearance.OneKM of 400 K.V, lines damages (DEMUNISHES), 6/7 Hectors
(15/16 acers)90% owned by small farmers.Damage due to construction
of400 KV towers /lines on 2 Hectors land, will fragment it into 3
pieces, 5000 Meters Underneath (RoW). 2500 Meters on both
sides.
29. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd biggest swindler of
legally entitled compensation of million Farmers!
Power Grid claims that it has powers to enter into any private
land to construct tower and lines with outowners consent or payment
of compensation. Power Grid is a Company doing business for
profits. It is licensed by Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission which fixes transmission wheeling charges. Power Grid
during 5 years period (2014-15 to 2017-2018) has declared profit of
Rs. 31,184.2 Crores. Dividend paid Rs. 7, 851.36 Crores. Tax is Rs.
8,337.29 Crores. During the period lands damaged are 6,15,792 Acers
(1,48,390 Hectors) land and Towers built 1,20,975 (average 2.5
Towers per CKM). None (Not even one ) of the farmers were paid
Compensation, either for total damage under towers or substantial
damage under lines.(Extracts. Power Grid Annual Report 2017-2018 (5
Years Summery).
30. Supreme Court of India Judgment. No.10951 of 2016 dated
14-12-2016.Illegal and unconstitutional pronouncements?
This Judgment by Supreme Court has led to total denial of
compensation by Transmission companies.Tofarmers misfortune the
judgment held that Power Grid Corporation India Ltd, a profit
making Transmission company, Licensed and working under Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission, (i)Need not follow procedure of
giving notice to land /property owner (ii) No need to get consent
of the land owner /farmers and (iii) Compensation has to be decided
by District Judge under Act 1885. It is delivered on the
presumption that Power Grid corporation being conferred, powers of
telegraph authority (Telegraph Act 1885, Section 10 ) by Government
of India under Section 164 of Electricity Act 2003, therefore need
not follow PROCEDURE nor COMPENSETION.The SC judgment is violation
of Constitution of India, it is illegal and violation of Right to
property. This Judgment needs to revoked.
31. The Judgment (S.C.10951 of 2016)No need to follow
procedure/Rules 2006 for getting consent of land owner while
damaging his property!
The Judgment (Para.21.) Section 10 of the Indian telegraph act
1885 empowers the Telegraphauthority to place and maintain
telegraph line under over along or across and posts in or upon any
immovable property.The provisions of section (10. b) of the Indian
telegraph Act 1885 makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring
power to lay down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not
acquire any right other than that of user in the
property.Further,Section 10 (d) of the Indian telegraph Act 1885,
obliges the telegraph authority to ensure that it causes as little
damages as possible and that the telegraph authority shall also be
obliged to pay full compensation to all person interested for any
damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those
powers.
(Para 2)As Power Grid is given the Powers of telegraph
Authority, Rule 3(1)of the Rules 2006 ,cases to apply in the case
of Power grid by the virtue of execution clause contained in
sub-section (4) of Rule 3 Which reads as under
“3 (4)Nothing contained inthis rule shall effect the powers
conferred upon any licensee under Section 164 of the Act
(Para 23) We, thus have no hesitation in rejecting the argument
of the writ petitioner that impugned action of the Power grid was
contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003.
(Para 29) Civil appeal No.8342 of 2009. The applicant in this
case also raised the issue of taking prior consent from it as the
owner of land before laying electric transmission line. The
argument has been rejected by us while dealing with the appeal of
century textiles & Industries limited, Accordingly, this appeal
is also dismissed.
32. Importance of Procedure —Supreme Court of India(1987) and
United States Supreme Court(1942) Judgments: -
History of Liberty is observance of Procedure S.C.
1987&& Us 1942
AIR.1987. SC 2386. Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India. (2)United
States. S. C 1942 (318) United State 332.
“The observations made therein are to the effect that the due
observance of the prescribed procedure is a guarantee against
arbitrary exercise of power.The procedural safe guards should be
commensurate with the sweep of the powers. The wider the power the
greater the need for restraint in its exercise and correspondingly,
more liberal the construction of the procedural safeguards
envisaged by the statute.
“THE HISTORY OF LIBERTY ”said Frank Further J., the learned
judge, “HAS LARGELY BEEN THE HISTORY OF OBSERVENCE OF PROCEDURAL
SAFE GUARDS ” (1942) 318 United States 332.//I submitRef :C.W.J.C.
NO. 6993 of 2010 Judgment on 9th February 2011 Patna High Court.
Justice Navavathi Prasad Singh- Between Power Grid Corporation of
India Vs. Ram Naresh Singh.//( Judgment. Para 13): - We are mindful
of the vital public interest involved in the present matter perhaps
with all India ramifications. In view of the doctrine of imminent
domain read with rule 3 of the rules the applicant has the power to
install transmission towers on the lands of respondent numbers 1
& 2 in public interest, after following the procedure
prescribed and payment. We are in this connection reminded of
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs Union
of India, AIR 1987 23876 wherein the importance of following
prescribed procedure has been emphasized. The observance made
therein are to the effect that due observance of the prescribed
procedure is guarantee against arbitrary exercise and
correspondingly more liberal the construction of the procedural
safeguard envisaged by the statute”. This curiously evolved ruled
administrative law is now firmly established and if, I may add,
rightly so he that take the procedural slot. The history of liberty
judge has largely being the history of observance of procedural
safeguards (1992) 318 US 332. We are afraid the non-compliance of
the mandate of S-130 is an infirmity which goes to the root of the
jurisdiction.
33. The Judgment (S. C. 10951 of 2016)and Telegraph Act 1885
Section 10.Damage to property and Compensation not considered?
:- It is held that Power Grid need not take prior consent of the
Land owner for constructing tower/lines. (Pars 22 &23) as it
empowered with telegraph authority under, Section 10
Section 10 is as follows:-“ Power of Telegraph Authority to
place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.
Section 10(a)The telegraph authority shall not exercise the
powers conferred by this section except for the purpose of
telegraph established or maintained by the (Central government
–
Section 10 (b)THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT shall not acquire any right
other than that of user only in the PROPERTY UNDER, over, along,
across in or upon which the telegraph authority places at ANY
TELEGRAPH LINE OR POST.
Section 10 (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph
authority shall not exercise powers in respect of any property
VESTED IN OR UNDER THE CONTROLL OR MANAGEMENT of ANY LOCAL
AUTHORITY, WITH OUT THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORITY;AND
Section 10 (d) the exercise of the powers conferred by this
section, the telegraph authority shall DO AS LITTLE DAMAGE AS
POSSIBLE, and when it has exercised those powers in respect of any
PROPERTY other that referred to in clause (c), SHALL PAY FULL
COMPENSETION TO ALL PERSONS INTRESTED FOE ANY DAMAGE SUSTAINED BT
THEM by reason of the exercise of those powers “
10.1Reading of Section 10 (a)indicatives powers are conferred
only for telegraph established by CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 10 (b)
indicates that CENTRAL GOVERNMENT shall not acquire any right other
than USER ONLY IN THE PROP[ERTY -- 10 (c) indicates in regard to
local authority permission from local authorities MUST BE OBTAINED
10 (d) indicates that while carrying out works TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY
SHALL DO AS LITTLE DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE and --shall pay FULL
COMPENSETION TO ALL PERSONS interested for ant damage sustained by
them by REASON OF THE EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS.
34. The Judgment (S.C. Civil10951 of 2016) fix compensation
underTelegraph Act 1885 by District Judge?
(Para 25)”At this stage, we deal with the directions of the
Division bench regarding compensation payable to the writ
petitioner, or for that matter to the state government. In the
first instance, no such claim was laid by the petitioner in the
writ petition or by the state government before the High Court.
Further more, the High Court could not have given this task to
theirDistrict Collector, which is contrary to the provisions of
Section 16 (c) of the Indian telegraph Act, 1885 which are extended
to laying down electricity lines. As per heprovision such authority
vests with the District judge.
(Para.27) Civil Appeal No.8951 of 23011. This appeal is filed by
Power Grid vs of Ram Naresh Singh. Inthis case, transmission lines
are in the District Sasram in the State of Bihar.The complete work
for laying down the transmission lines where 524 over head towers
have been erected by the power grid. Out of these, only 1 tower is
located at the land belonging to Ram Naresh Singh. The dispute is
raised is with regard to quantum of competition and as per the
provisions of Section 16 of Indian telegraph Act 1885,it is to be
settled by the district judge. Thus for all the reasons given above
in the Case of century textiles&Industries limited, this appeal
of the Power Grid stands allowed and the judgment of the high Court
is set aside. The Judgment in 8951 of 23011 is violation of right
to property. Further the respondent Ram Naresh Singh cannot
approach District Judge Under Telegraph Act 1885 has there is no
Provision for revision hens it is illegal.
35. CLARIFICATION ON S. C. JUDGMENT, No. 10951 of 2016, ON
CONSENT OF LAND OWNER AND FIXING OF COMPENSATION BY DISTRICT
JUDGE.(Legal Clarification).
The issue of that the Honorable Supreme Court of India in
respect that the decision rendered on 14-12-2016 in Civil Appeal
No.10953 of 2016 & batch in the case of Power Grid corporation
of India ltd, vs Century Textiles & Industries ltd, held that
there is no need for consent of land owner and that that aggrieved
has to approach District Judges for compensation. The decision in
the above case is not relevant to PIL filed by the petitioner. The
Power Grid Corporation of India as well as other transmission
companies are placing much reliance upon the decision rendered on
14.12.2016 in the above case.
(.·. . ····)Para. 21. Supreme Court had held as hereunder in
regard to the applicability of Rule 3(1) of The Licensees Rules,
2006. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 empowers the
Telegraph Authority to place and maintain a telegraph line under,
over, along or across and posts in or upon any immovable property.
The provision of Section 10 (b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay
down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not acquire any
right other than that of user in the property. Further, Section 10
(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the Telegraph
Authority to ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and
that the Telegraph Authority shall also be obliged to pay full
compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by
them by reason of the exercise of those powers.As Power Grid is
given the powers of Telegraph Authority, Rule 3(I) of the Rules,
2006 ceases to apply in the case of Power Grid by virtue of
execution clause contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 which reads as
under:
Para. "3 (4). - Nothing contained in this rule shall effect the
‘powers conferred upon any licensee under Section of the Act."
We, thus, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the
writ petitioner that the impugned action of the Power Grid was
contrary, to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. "
A perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court would clearly reveal that as Power Grid is treated as an
authority under the Indian. Telegraph Act, 1885 and that it
acquires all such powers which are vested ina
Telegraphauthority,
under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 including
the power to eliminate any obstruction in the laying of power
transmission lines and that legislature had not· permitted any kind
of impediment / obstruction in achieving this objective through the
scheme of the Indian Telegraph Act.
It is submitted, with respect, that the aforesaid decision
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is clearly
distinguishable on facts. Various facets of law were neither argued
nor brought to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India and the decision was rendered in the particular facts of that
case without proper argument_. It is well recognized that a
decision should be treated as given per incur-am when it is given
in ignorance of the terms of a (statute or of a rule having the
force of a statute. So far as the aforesaid judgment shows, no
argument was addressed to Hon'ble Judges on the question of the
applicability of provisions of the special. Statute viz., The
Electricity Act, 2003 which can be summarized as hereunder:-
The Electricity Act, 2003 is a special statute dealing with
subject matter of electricity. Section 174 of the Electricity Act
2003 contains a non-obstante clause which provides that if there is
any express conflict with any other Act, the provisions of the 2003
Act would prevail. The Telegraph Act 1885 does not contain any such
non-obstante clause. Hence, if there is any inconsistency between
2003 Act and the 1885 Act, the provisions of the 2003 Act shall
prevail.
Provisions Sections.67 and 68 of 2003 Act would be applicable to
all the licensees irrespective of whether they are empowered to
exercise powers of the Telegraph Authority under section 164 of
2003 Act or not. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 67, the
appropriate Government has been authorized to frame rules in
relation to cases and circumstances in which the consent in
writing, inter alia, of the owner or occupier of the land shall be
required for carrying out works, the nature and period of notice to
be given by the licensee before carrying out works, the procedure
and manner of consideration of objection and suggestions received
in accordance with such notice, the authority which may grant
permission in the circumstances where the owner or occupier objects
to carrying out of works and determination and payment of
compensation to persons affected by works under Section 67.
Power Grid Corporation despite being conferred with powers of
the Telegraph Authority under 1885 Act by the Appropriate
Government, have been granted permission to establish over head
lines as per mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the 2003
Act. This it is clear that provisions of Sections 67 & 68 are
binding also on the Respondents notwithstanding the notification
under Section I64 of 2003 Act.
It cannot be debated that non-obstante clause contained in
Section 51 of the 1910 Act has been purposely omitted in Section
164 of 2003 Act. This would indicate that the primacy has been
given to the Rules which may be framed by the Government. As a
matter of fact, in the 'Works of Licensee Rules 2006', the Central
Government introduced Rule 3 (4) with a specific purpose of
bringing back the effect of non -obstante clause occurring in
Section 51 in order to override the effect of sub-rules (I) to (3)
of Rule 3 which provides for consent of land owners.
Thus, the Central Government by framing the rules has expressly
chosen to give overriding effect of notification under Sec.164 over
the requirement of the consent of the land owners. Under Sec. I64
of the 2003 Act, the Government may accept the powers of the
Telegraph Authority under the Telegraph Act subject to the
modifications and limitations that may be thought fit. Therefore,
it is for the Government to decide as to what rules are to be
framed and to what extent the powers of the Telegraph Authority
were "to be extended. Thus, it can be conclude that Sec. I64 as it
stands does not have any overriding effect on any part of Sec.67 of
the 2003 Act.
If the intention of law makers was to provide Section 164 with
power to override other sections and to have same powers as Section
51 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the section would have been
worded differently and would have started as "Notwithstanding
anything contained in Section 67(2) or rules framed there
under..."
The provisions of the Sections 12 to 18 of the 1910 Act are
applicable in terms of Section 185 (2) (b) of the 2003 Act.
Therefore, by virtue of Section 174 of the 2003 Act, Sections 12 to
18 of the 1910 Act would have the precedence over any other
legislation. This would make it clear that even assuming that there
was a conflict between the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885
and the provisions of the 1 910 Act, the latter Act would
prevail.
Merely because certain powers of the Telegraph Act had been
conferred on a Licensee, it does not mean that the Licensee has
become a Telegraph Authority as defined in the Telegraph Act.
Simply because certain powers 'of Telegraph Authority are available
to a Licensee, it does not mean that all the rights and liabilities
of the Licensee would be governed by the Telegraph Act.
After enactment of 2003 Act, Indian Power Sector is governed by
this Act. Section 67(4) confers power upon the Appropriate
Commission to resolve disputes between land owner and the licensee.
This power is untrammeled and is not impaired by the rules framed
under Section 67(2). Rules framed under section 67(2) would govern
the working of licensee and not the Commission"
Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decided
are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. With all due
respect to the Hon'ble Judges who passed the aforesaid judgment, it
is submitted that the said judgment is not binding , in view of the
particular facts and circumstances of the case and as the same was
delivered without proper argument and without reference to the
relevant provisions of the Act conferring express power in
overriding Sec. 164 of the Act.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur
reported in AIR 1989 SC 38, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
referring to precedential value of a decision rendered by it in a
writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
held as follows :-
" A decision should be treated as given per incur-am when it is
given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having
the force of a statute. So far as the order shows, no argument was
addressed to the Court on the question or not whether any direction
could properly be made compelling the Municipal Corporation to
construct a stall at the pitching site of a pavement squatter.
Professor P.J. Fitzgerald, editor of the Salmond on
Jurisprudence, 12th edn. explains the concept of sub silentio at p.
I53 in these words: "A decision passes sub silentio, in the
technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when
the particular point of law involved in the decision is not
perceived by the court or present to its mind. The Court may
consciously decide in favors of one party because of point A, which
it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that
logically the court should not have decided in favors of the
particular party unless it also decided point B in his favors; but
point B was not argued or considered by the court. In such
circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts
and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not
an authority on point B. Point B is said to pass sub silentio.
In Gerard v. Worth of Paris Ltd. (k)., [1936] 2 All E.R. 905
(C.A.), the only point argued was on the question of priority of
the claimant's debt, and, on this argument being heard, the Court
granted the order. No consideration was given to the question
whether a garnishee order could properly be made on an account
standing in the name of the liquidator. When, therefore, this very
point was argued in a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal in
Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith, Ltd., (1941] I KB
675. The Court held itself not bound by its previous decision. Sir
Wilfrid Greene, M.R., said that he could not help thinking that the
point now raised had been deliberately passed sub silentio by
counsel in order that the point of substance might be decided. We
went on to say that the point had to be decided by the earlier
'court before it could make the order which it did; nevertheless,
since it was decided "without argument, without reference to the
crucial 'words of the rule, and without any citation of authority",
it was not binding and would not be followed. Precedents sub
silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has ever
since been followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of
precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued and
decided should not be allowed to be reopened. The weight accorded
to dicta varies with the type of dictum. Mere casual expressions
carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a Judge,
however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement, having
the weight of authority. "
It is therefore submitted, with respect that the decision
rendered in the case of the Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd., vs.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., is clearly distinguishable
and has no application either to the facts or the issues of the law
that arise for consideration in representation submitted by the
petitioner.
36. Conflicting Judgments by Appellate Tribunal for Electricity
and Supreme Court on the issue of JUDICIAL POWERS OF REGULATORY
COMMISSIONS.Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATC) Case No. 2011,
Appeal. NO.83 0F 2010, DT.07-09-2011.
(Para 93). Any dispute arising in regard to compensation would
have to be resolved by the STATE COMMISSION. What is confusing to
farmers is, if the Collector issues compensation proceedings under
Telegraph Act, 1885, how can a land owner farmers file revision
under Works of Licensee Rules 2006, Rule 3 (3). Herein Companies
issued notices under Telegraph Act 1885. The Collector also issued
proceedings only under Telegraph Act. The Works of Licensee Rules
2006 are not referred to in the notice given to land owner farmers
by the companies. The transmission companies letters have not
informed the Collector about the provisions of Rules 2006. The
proceedings by the Collectors do not refer to Rules 2006. Not
referring to Rules 2006 in the NOTICE OR COLLECTORS PROCEDDINGS
will deny the land owner famers of HIS RIGHT TO FILE REVESION.
37. Distinctions between Comprehensive Compensation(Act 2003)
andRestricted Compensation (Act 1910). Judgment by Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity.No.135 0of 2012 dated 14-11-2013.
Para.43(e)It is to be noted that whereas section 12 (2)of 1910
Act provides for compensation only, Section 67 (3) of the 2003 Act
provides for COMPENSETION FOR DAMAGE, DETRIMENT OR INCONVONIENCE
caused by the licensee. Thus the term COMPENSETION in section 67
(3) is much wider than the COMPENSETION inSection 12 (2) of the
1910 Act. The section 67 (4) of 2003 act provides that where any
difference or dispute including amount of compensation under
sub-section (3) of Section 67 arises under section 67, the matter
shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. Once having
observed that it had powers to adjudicate under section 67 (4) of
the Act 2003, the HaryanaCommission should have decided the issue
including the compensation.
38. Compensation for land damages. Proceedings issued by
District Collector under Act 1885 -Contradictions and illegal.
Any dispute arising in regard to compensation would have to be
resolved by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission or STATE
COMMISSION. What is confusing to farmers is, if the Collector
issues compensation proceedings under Telegraph Act, 1885, how can
a land owner farmers file revision before Regulatory Commission
under Works of Licensee Rules 2006, Rule 3 (3). Herein Companies
issued notices under Telegraph Act 1885.So also Collector issued
proceedingsunder Telegraph Act. The Works of Licensee Rules 2006
are not referred in the company notice or Collector proceedings. If
so how can land owner file Revision under Rule3(3).Not referring to
Rules 2006 in the NOTICE OR COLLECTORS PROCEDDINGS will deny the
land owner famers of HIS RIGHT TO FILE REVESION, which has legal
and Constitutional sanctity
39. S.C.Judgment A TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY CANNOT BE CONFERRED WITH
POWERS UNDER ELECTRICITY ACT. 1970:11-09-1966- SC.AIR.1970 SC 491
(1970)3 SCC 851 -
The Honorable Court has made the following observation in the
above case.The State Government conferred upon the Petitioner
powers for placing electric supply lines appliances and apparatus
for the transmission and distribution of the energy by it within
the area of its supply which the telegraph authority possesses
under Section 10 to 18 and 19A of the Indian Telegraph Act with
respect to placing of telegraph lines and posts Section 51 merely
empowers the State Government to confer on the licensee certain
powers which can be exercised by a telegraph authority under the
Indian Telegraph Act. It does not by reference incorporate in to
the Indian Electricity Act all the provisions of the Indian
Telegraph Act.Merely because some of the powers conferred under the
Indian Telegraph Act on the telegraph authority could be conferred
on a licensee under the Indian Telegraph Act, it does not follow
that all the rights and liabilities of a licensee under the Indian
Electricity Act are governed by the provisions of the Indian
Telegraph Act.
40. HC judgment -DISTINCTION BETWEEN 19TH CENTURY TELEGRAPH
ACT,1885 AND 21ST CENTURY ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003.
Gujarat High Court Civil./SCA/18334/2011, 29-08-2013, Dilip
Singh Chouhan vs Gujrat Ujra Nigam.’ The aforesaid aspect would
lead us to examine the difference and distinction in the mode of
exercise of the power under Section 67 of the Act read with the
Rules of 2006 and the exercise of power under the Telegraph Act
when it is so conferred by the Notification under Section 164 of
the Act by the appropriate Government. The distinction can be
carved out as under:If the power is to be exercised under Section
67 of the Act read with the Rules of 2006 at the first instance
consent of the owner or the occupier is the requirement for
exercise of power, whereas if the Telegraph Authority has to
exercise the power the consent of the owner or occupier is not
required for exercise of power, but “WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT
THE OWNER OR OCCUPIER OF THE PROPERTY HAS RIGHT TO RESIST OR
OBSTRUCT WHEN THE WORK IS UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENCE “.There is a
thin line of distinction between getting consent of the owner or
occupier and enabling power of the owner or occupier to resist or
obstruct any work. Consent would presuppose an action after meeting
of two minds and arriving at an unanimous decision, whereas in a
case where the owner or the occupier has right to resist or
obstruct would mean that one (licensee) may proceed to undertake
the work by intimation to the owner or occupier and if there is no
resistance or obstruction, the work may be started or proceeded
with until the same is resisted or obstructed. ‘THE MOMENT THERE IS
RESISTENCE OR OBSTRUCTION BY THE OWNER OR OCCUPIER, THE AUTHORITY
OF LICENCE TO UNDERTAKE THE WORK WOULD END.
41. High CourtJUDGMENT:-DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETY- 19TH
CENTURY&21STCENTURY:-Gujarat High Court
No:XCIVIL/sca/18334/2011 Dated 29-08-2013:-
The Honorable High Court has observed as follows.As per section
10(d) there are two mandatory requirements. (1) Telegraph Authority
shall do as little damage as possible; and (2) to pay full
compensation to all persons interested for the damage sustained by
them by the reasons of the exercise of those powers. The next
aspect is what will be the scope of as little damage as possible
and what will be the scope of full compensation. Before we address
on the said aspect, it will not be out of place to mention that
Indian Telegraph Act came to be enacted in the year 1885, much
prior to not only independence of our country, but could rather be
said as the law enacted in 19th century. There are far more
development not only in the rights of the citizens, but also in the
obligation and the way of discharge of duty by the authority and
more particularly, after the Constitution has come into force in
the Country. Further, there are far more development of science,
the method and way of enjoyment of the properties by the citizens
and so is for various scientific method developed for laying down
the lines. Telegraph lines are by now outdated on the date when we
are to pronounce the judgment and they are to be substituted for
the electricity lines. Therefore, we need to particularly Section
164 of the Act are the laws of 21st Century. At the first brush we
may say that by the laws of 21st Century i.e. Electricity Act, the
power so conferred by the Act of 19th Century are continued. If the
Act read with the Rules 2006 are considered, it does require the
consent of the owner and also in absence of the consent, if the
Police Commissioner or Magistrate is to grant permission
simultaneous assessment of the compensation and the payment thereof
subject to revision power by appropriate Commission, whereas the
mechanism so provided under the Telegraph ACT is different, but
while interpreting the provisions of the Telegraph Act for laying
down of the lines of electricity we need to keep in mind the rights
and obligations so prevailing in 21st Century and it cannot be as
that of 19th Century when the position of the Country, including
the development in the society and the science was far behind.
42. H.C. Judgment RIGHT TO RESIST OR OBSTRUCT PRIOR INTIMATION
IS ESSENTIAL.Case:-Gujarat High Court Case No: Civil/SCA/1834/2011.
Dated: 29.08.2013- Dilip Singh Chouhan Vs Gujarat Vajra Nigam
(Transmission Company).
While exercising the power as that of the Telegraph Authority
under the Telegraph Act, on account of the notification under
Section 164 of the Act consent of the owner or occupier may not be
required, but some reasonable prior intimation should be given to
the owner or occupier, enabling him to exercise his right to resist
or obstruct, may be on the ground that the principles of least
damage is not followed or may be on the ground that appropriate
compensation is not paid or otherwise. The moment there is
resistance or obstruction by the owner or occupier, the licensee
has to stop his work, if any, or to withdraw from the property of
the owner or the occupier. Thereafter, the licensee may approach
before the District Magistrate for permission to lay down the line
and the District Magistrate in exercise of the power may grant
permission, but while granting permission, he may be required to
examine the observance of the principles of little damage as
possible and thereafter the permission may be granted.
43. S.C. Judgment- Definition of Right to Property. S.C. Civil
.2111 -15-1984 in 1994. Jillu Bhai Nan Bhai vs State of
Gujarat.
Property in legal sense means an AGGREGATED of rights which are
guaranteed and protected by law. it extends to every species of
valuable right to dispose of the thing in every legal way, to
possess it, to use it and exclude every one else from interfering
with it. The dominion or in definite right of use of or disposition
which one way lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects
is called property. The exclusive right of possessing,enjoying, and
disposing of a thing is property in legal parameters. Therefore the
word property connotes every thing which is subject of ownership,
corporal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or
invisible, real or personal, every thing that has an exchangeable
value or which goes to make up – WEALTH- ESTATE – STATUS.
44. DECLARATION OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY AS A HUMAN RIGHT.S.C.
2011:- SC.SLP.(Civil) 28034/2011 State of Haryana vs Mukesh
Kumar.
The Honorable Court held that “The right to property is now
considered to be not only constitutional or statutory right but
also a human right. Human rights have already been considered in
realm of individual rights such as right to health, right to
livelihood, right to shelter and employment etc. But now human
rights are gaining a multi-faceted dimension. Right to Property is
also considered very much a part of the new dimension. Therefore,
even claim of adverse possession has to be read in that
context.
45. DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY RIGHT”S.C.1953:-State of West Bengal
vs Subodh Gopal Bose.17-12-1953-SC.1954.AIR.92.1954, SCR.587.
The Honorable Supreme Court held that “ No cut and dried test
can be formulated as to whether in a given case the owner is
deprived of his property. Each case must be decided as it arises on
its own facts”. “Broadly speaking it may be said an abridgement
would be so substantial, as to amount to deprivation within the
meaning of article, 31, in effect it with from the possession and
enjoyment of the ownership or seriously Impaired use and enjoyment
by him, or materially reduced its value.”. Here in the case of
petitioner the deprivation of property is huge which has totally
reduced the value.
46. DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL DEPRIVATION:- SUPREME COURT
DECISION. SCR (1954).674. Dwarka Das vs Sholapur Spinning mills
held,
The Honorable Court held that “by substantial deprivation is
meant the sort of deprivation that substantially robs a man of
those attributes of enjoyment which normally accompany rights to or
an interest in property. The form is unessential. It is the
substance that one must seek.” Herein the land underneath after
construction of Towers and lines will remain in the name of owner
farmer. The learned Judges FURTHER “Made Observation Of --
Deprivation –Illusionary Phantom Title –Leaving The Mere Husk Of
Title: As of 2018 property is declared as Human Right .Herein due
to towers and lines a farmers land is Mutilated. But compensation
is denied on various flimsy grounds of “ Land Will Remain In The
Name Of Farmers—Farmers Land Is Not Acquired “- It is because most
of the farmers are small holders and illiterate, have no economic
capacity to pursue the issues legally or through administration For
over 15 (2003-2018 ) years the exploitation by companies is
happening unchecked.
47. S.C Judgment.Directions/guidelines for assessing land
value/compensation. Case No.3148-3157/2000 dated 07-01-2007. Atma
Singh Vs State of Haryana.
(Para.5)“ for ascertaining the market value of the land, the
potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken in to
consideration. Potentialitymeans capacity or possibility for
changing or developing in to a state of actuality. THE QUESTION
WHEATHER A LAND HAS POTETIAL VALUE OR NOT IS PRMERLY ONE OF THE
FACT DEPENDING UPON ITS CONDITIONS USER TO WHICH ITS PUT OR
REASONABLY CAPABLE OF BEING PUT AND PROXIMITY TO
RESIDENTISL,COMMERCIAL,INDISTRIAL ARES ON INSTITUTIONS. the
existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their
further extension,whether near about town is developing or
prospects of development has to taken into consideration. That
failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is
violation of principal natural justice.
48. Applicability of L.A.Act 2013 provisions for compensation
for lands damaged due to High Tension Transmission Towers and
Lines.
APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION
AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013.
The changes in the provisions of the New Land Acquisition Act
was intended to facilitate farmers to get better compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in lieu of land being
compulsorily acquired by the appropriate Government and to remove
the procedural difficulties in the acquisition of lands required
for important national projects. In view of the urgency, these
amendments were brought about by an Ordinance on
31.12.2014.(Annexure.10))Subsequently on 10.3.2015 Lok Sabha passed
the Amendment Bill to replace this Ordinance. The Amendment Bill
passed by the Lok Sabha includes some further changes to the
Ordinance which are as follows:
Compensation as per Schedule extended to 13 Acts:
Compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and
rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third
Schedules of the Act are extended to the thirteen Acts mentioned in
the Fourth Schedule of the New Land Acquisition Act namely-
(1) to (11)xxx
(12) The Electricity Act, 2003;
(13) xxx
Neither of the respondents could proceed blind folded in all
these matters.
The Act of 2003 and more particularly Section 164 of the Act are
laws of 21st Century. If the Act of1st century providing the method
and mechanism under Section 67 of the Act read with the Rules of
2006 are considered, it does require the consent of the owner and
also in absence of consent, if the Police Commissioner or the
Magistrate is to grant permission simultaneous assessment of the
compensation and the payment thereof subject to provisional power
by appropriate Commission, whereas the mechanism so provided under
the Telegraph Act is different, but while interpreting the
provisions of the Telegraph Act for exercise of the power by any
person as that of the Telegraph act for laying down of the lines of
electricity it needs to be kept in mind the rights and obligations
so prevailing in 21st Century and it cannot be as that of 19th
Century when the position of the country, including the development
in the society and the science was far behind.
It ought to have been considered that, in view of the Harmonized
List of Infrastructure sub-sectors notified on 27 March, 2012 by
Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure Section), Ministry
of Finance, Govt. of India, provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation Act has been made applicable to Transmission
works.
49. Delayed compensation to be awarded at current market
value:-
S.C. Civil Appeal.No.7780 of 2012, Dated.02-11-2012Tukaram Kane
vs Maharashtra Industrial Development:-
(Para 18). While dealing with similar issue this court in K.
Krishna Reddy & others vs the Special Dy Collector , Land
acquision Unit 11 .LMD, Karimnager, AIR 1988,Sc 2123,held as under
: (Para 19) After all money is what money buys, What the claimants
couldhave bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988.
Perhaps, not even one half of it. It is a common experience that
the purchase power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation,
the delayed payment may lose all charm and utility of the
compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the
interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturistsgenerally have no
avocation. They totally depend upon land. if uprooted, they will
find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. they have no
savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no
other work. They even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all
such cases,it is of utmost importance that the award should be made
without delay. The enhanced compensation must be determined without
loss of time”
50. Unauthorized and Illegal Guidelines on compensation by
Ministry of Power in 2015.(Annexure–11)
It is seen that Ministry Power, G. O.I has constituted a
committee dated: 9/10-04-2015, under Special Secretary to analyses
the issues related to Right of Way for laying of transmission lines
across the country and to suggest a uniform methodology for payment
of compensation on this count. The committees have provided
guidelines on area damaged and fixed compensation of 85 % land
value under Towers and 15% under lines (Right of Way). The Report,
Dt.15-10-2015 is sent to Chief secretaries of State, CMDs of State
Power Utilities. Incidentally the Power Grid Corporation of India
is member of the Committee, but as per ACTS 2013-15 they have to
follow the rules.
The report by thr committee Ref. 3/7/2015- Trans – Ministry of
Power., GOI,Dated.15th October 2015 giving guidelines to
Transmission Licensees /Companies/ is illegal and contrary to the
provisions of Act 2003. This special Act 2003 as detailed in the
OBJECTIVES AND REASONS IS INTENDED TO KEEP GOVERNMENT AWAY FROM ALL
THE ACTIVITIES OF POWER SECTOR, except policies. The fact that
after 13 years of passing of Act 2003 and 9 years of making Rules
2006 Ministry of Power, GOI constituted a committee on 09/10
-04-2015 is indicative of deliberate attempt by Ministry of Power,
GOI, and State Governments, of their continued control and
interfering in the issues of Power Sector. The issue of Gazette in
–2003 giving exemption to PGCIL to evade Rules 2006 and conferring
Telegraph Authority (Under Act 1885) is indicative of Governments
interference in the Power sector affairs by officials. Therefore
constituting Committee, by Ministry of Power for fixing
compensation is also illegal, contrary to the objectives of Act
2003. The authorization under Telegraph Authority in 2003 and
giving guidelines for compensation in 2015 are illegal, and
violation of Right to property Article 300 A. Therefore needs to
cancelled, but as per ACTS 2013-15 they have to follow the
rules.
51. CRUEL BEHAVIOUR OF OFFICIELS TOWARDS FARMERS :-
Lack of ethics and morels by officials on Ministry Energy&
Department of Power StatesMisuse of Act 2003, Section 164,
Violation of Constitutional provisions by Ministry of Power G.O.I
Ministry of Power, GOI, by misusing the obscure Section 164
EXERCISE OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CASES. Perhaps
Parliamentarians saw section 164 as HARMLESS one. But these MEAN
and INHUMAN people in Ministry of Power, State Energy Departments
in collusion with Power Grid and State Transmission company used
Section 164 for evading compensation and causing loss of lively
hood to millions of poor, illiterate and orphaned small farmers.
Towers and lines have destroyed value of land which is economic
anchor for their survival. Loss of land value (Property) denies
social recognition/ respect farmers family. A notice issued by
Power Grid to farmers under Act 1885 with out following Rules 2006
, nor informing about damage to Land and compensation is followed
sine 2013 ( Annexre.12) Similar notice issued even in 2017 also
have no details of Compensation (Annexure 13) The Judgment by
Supreme Court of 2007 Kerala Electricity board vs Levisha is not
implemented.
52. Denigration of farmers status in social circles
duediminution of land/property value:-
Transmission Companies have been damaging farmers (86% Small
& marginal) landed properties since 2003 till 2019 without
following due process of law nor paying compensation. Farmers have
lost lively hood as Lands the under underneath towers/lines becomes
unfit even for cultivation. So also land under Lines (ROW) looses
substantial value. Land as property gives farmer SOCIAL RECOGNITION
AND ECONOMIC SECURITY. After lines are drawn and towers are
constructed the economic security used for family purposes of
marriage, education, health are destroyed. Inability to sell land
DUE TO DEMUNITION OF VALUE has caused immense harm.
53. If Constitutional Institutional ABANDON farmers, what are
their option?
The dilemma of farmer’s is whether Agriculture Land is
CONSIDERED AS A PROPERTY by the Apex Courts? Can it be damaged
without due process of law? How can APEX COURTS (S.C, & HC’s)
UPHOLD/support deprivation of RIGHT TO PEROPRTY without following
due process of law and payment of compensation and that too by a
profit making company is legal? The puzzle before dumb creature is
how can damage to his LAND due Telegraph lines and Transmission
Towers/Lines be equated? Farmers common sense says that he is
entitled for Compensation? But then, when Supreme Court & High
Courts deny it, whom should he approach for JUSTICE?
It is a reality that towers/lines causes permanent damage to
farmers landed property BY TRANSMISSION COMPANEY DUE TO COSTRUCTION
OF TOWERS AND LINES. Due to lines / works the land value gets
totally reduced (DEMINISHES). If so how is the land owner to be
compensated? If so, under which Act / Rules? Who has authority to
fix Compensation? and When? As seen from Rules 2006 Rule 3(2) order
made by the District Magistrate shall be subject to revision by the
Commission. If Rules 3 (2) (District Collector fixing compensation)
are denied to private land/property owner, how, when and under what
rules the is owner to get compensation?.
54. Unethical Conduct of Public Utility-Transmission
Companies.
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, a company and licensed by
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission must act in accordance
with Rules 2006 and CONSTITUTIONL provisions! There cannot be
discrimination between government and citizens in regard to
PROPERTY RIGHT, damage to property, procedure for assessing damages
and payment of Compensation.
Transmission Companies by invoking telegraph authority under
Section 164, the land owner is DEPRIVARED OF COMPENSETION TO THE
DAMAGED LAND. Act 1885 has no provisions for (i) Seeking consent
(ii) Negotiating for compensation (iii) Seeking Collectors
assistance to fix compensation and (iv) Filing revision before the
Regulatory Commission. Or (v) Appeal before Appellate Tribunal for
Electricity (A.T.C).Where as under Rules 2006, Rule 3(1) (a)
provision of private land owner giving notice or getting consent is
exempted by misusing and abusing provisions of Section 164 of Act
2003.Indian Ministry of Power, Government of India cannot grant
DISCRIMINATORY EXEMTION UNDER Section 164 TO POWER GRID.
55. Illegal proceedings under Act 1885 by Collectors:-
In many districts Collators /Magistrates have issued
compensation under telegraph Act1885. Under the Act 1885 Collectors
have no powers to issue compensation. It is only Under Electricity
Act, Rules, 2006 Rule 3(2) Powers are vested with Collector to fix
compensation. The Rules 2006 has made provision for revision before
the regulatory Commission under Rules 13 (1) and (2). Under Act
1885 there is no provision for revision. Therefore the orders
issued by Collectors/magistrates under Act 1885 are all illegal.
Affected land owner farmers are entitled for revision Under Rules 3
(3), before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission(CERC) if
the DAMAGE to PROPERTY is by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Revision fordamagefor works done by State Transmission Companies
I,e , APTRANSCO , TRTRANSCO is before the State Electricity
Regulatory Commission. A illegal proceedings issue in 2013 by
Collector, Nellore, District without reference to Rules 2006 or SC
Cases is issued .All the Collectors orders/ proceedings issued
under Act 1885 be declared as null and void The proceeding are
illegal and unconstitutional. The y need to be cancelled . New
proceedings under Rules 2006 and taking Supreme Court judgment s in
Right to property , damage to property and substantial damage has
to be issued . The order must be based on S
