f.a.q. damages to farmers lands-by transmission towers and
TRANSCRIPT
F.A.Q. Damages to Farmers Lands-by Transmission Towersand lines.
=====================================
By P. Chengal Reddy, Advocate & Chief Adviser, Consortim of Indian Farmers Associatons (CIFA)
For clarifcaton mail. [email protected] Web. www.Indianfarmers.org
===============================================
Question:1-Do the transisssson coipanses have rsght to enter snto Fariers Land for
construction of TOWERS AND DRAW LINES wsthout FARMERS (OWNERS) prsor sntiiation
and taksng of consent and payient of coipensationn
Answer:-NO. (s) Fariers land ss a PROPERTY. Under Article 300. A, PROPERTY ss a
Constitutional Rsght. Land can be taken for publsc purpose but only by followsng procedure
and payient of coipensation. (ss) In 2011 Supreie Court of Indsa has declared PROPERTY
as a HUMAN RIGHT. (sss)Under Electrscsty Act 2003 Works of Lscensee Rules 2006 are
provsded to Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa to follow procedure for constructing Towers
and Lsnes. Under Rule 3(1)(a), Power Grsd has to take consent of the land owner farier. If
the Fariers refuses to gsve consent under Rule 3 (1) (b) The Power Grsd has to approach
the Dsstrsct Collector & Magsstrate seeksng perisssson. The Collector under Rule 3 (2) ss
authorssed to gsve perisssson afer seeksng vsews froi the fariers. The Collector ss
authorssed to FIX RENT OR COMPENSETION OR BOTH, WHICH SHOULD IN HIS OPENION BE
PAID BY THE LICENSEE TO RHE OWNER”. In case the fariers ss not satissed wsth
coipensation sied by the Collector, under Rule 3 (3) the farier can be sled for revssson
before the Electrscsty Regulatory Coiisssson. The Coiisssson under Rule 13 (1) and 13
(2) can revsse the Coipensation. Further there ss provssson for appeal for sncreassng the
coipensation before the Applegate Trsbunal for Electrscsty (A T E).Electrscsty Act 2003 ss
hsghly progresssve Act so as to develop ENERGY SECTOR as growth engsne.
Q.2. How ss st, as of now (Froi 2003 to Noveiber 24th 2018) Power Grsd and other
Transisssson Coipanses are forcsbly entersng snto fariers lands and constructing Towers
and Lsnes n
Ans:- Power Grsd and State Transisssson Coipanses have adopted issleadsng, sllegal,
crsisnal and unconstitutional iethods to construct Towers and Lsnes (s) They
CIRCUMVENTED Works of Lscensee Rules 2006, by snvoksng Section 164 of Electrscsty
Act.2003. Section 164 reads as follows. “EXERCISES OF POWERS OF TELEGRAPH
AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CASES”. Under Telegraph Act 1885 Telegraph Poles (Wesght 150
Kg) and lsnes (Wsng span 10 to 12 Feet) can be constructed wsthout seeksng perisssson of
land owner. The 1885 Act ss iade for constructing coiiunscation net work for Raslways
and Telephones. The Section 164 Authorsty ss to be used sn- IN CERTAIN CASES”. However
taksng advantage of section 164 siiedsately afer passsng Act 2003 Msnsstry of Power
Governient of Indsa sssued a GO===eipowersng Power Grsd Corporation wsth Telegraph
Act 1885 Powers to enter snto any land wsthout consent. The Transisssson coipanses
were asked to apply for eieiption sn profaria. The coipany has to publssh the SCHME
DETAILS sn a news paper gsve 2ionths tiie and asksng for objections froi publsc. There
afer Power Grsd ss gsven Telegraph Authorsty to construct towersr lsnes wsthout seeksng
consent of the land owner or payient of coipensation.
Froi passsng of Electrscsty Act 2003 till 2018 Power Grsd constructed 1, 28,000 Ki Lsnes .
The land used @ 15 acers per Ki works out to 3.5 Msllson Acers. Thss has caused losses to
4 Msllson fariers. In 15 years Power Grsd dsd not pay even sRs.1r- (Rupees one only ) as
coipensation faiers for daiagsng thesr land value . Dursng the past 15 years Power Grsd
has been declarsng huge prosts but not paysng coipensation top fariers. (ss) Power Grsd
was siart and hsghly successful sn iaksng iockery of powers conferred on Dsstrsct
Magsstratesr Collectors. If Land ss DAMAGED under Telegraph Poles-lsnes OR Transisssson
towers- lsnes, coipensation iust be pasd under Telegraph Act 1885 Section 10(d). So
also Electrscsty Act 2003 , Works of Lscensee Rules 2006 Rule 3(2) When iaksng an order---
MAGISTRATErCOLLECTOR– “SHALL FIX, AFTER CONSIDARING THE REPRESENTATION OF
THE CONCRNED PERSONS, IF ANY, THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSETION OR OF ANNUAL
RENT, OR BOTH, WHICH SHOULD IN HIS OPENION “. These Acts, Rules are never studsed
by the Collectors. Collectors based on dsscusssons or leter froi Transisssson Coipanses
sssued proceedsngs gsvsng noisnal coipensation for crop daiage.
None of the Collectors has iade eforts to study the DAMAGE TO LAND UNDER TOWERS
AND LINES so as to award coipensation for LOSS OF LAND VALUE. These glorssed
Collectors rAdisnsstrators of our Nation dsd use a sota of coiionsense as to assess
DAMAGE or EVALUTE DIFFARENCE BETWEEN Telegraph POLE and Transisssson TOWER.
They should have questioned Transisssson Coipanses about the QUANTAM of DAMAGE
TO FARMERS LANDS DUE TO TRANSMISSION TOWERS AND LINES and dsrect payient of
coipensationn Collectors are aware that 86% fariers are siall & iargsnal and that
Towerrlsnes wsll daiage value of land rproperty totally value less and perianently and
that faiers be pasd coipensation. But then the Collectors besng what they are went
about sssusng PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ANY RULE OR LAWn For 15 years Transisssson
coipanses iade Collectors as accessorses to CRIMINAL TRESSPASS BY THE COMANIES by
provsdsng --WILL FULLY - MISLEADING -WRONG – ILLEGAL – MISGUIDING –FALSE
--INFORMATION. The Polsce lskewsse are isslead to eitend support to Transisssson
Coipanses for sllegal construction.
Q.3. Why were these RULES – FACTS – IRREGULORITIES – ILLEGALLTY - SUPRIME COURT
JUDGMENTS not hsghlsghtedn
Ans. Firstly 99% of famers whose land are damaged are small, marginal, lavani (DKT )Pattadars and many absentee land owners. Most of them are illiterate, belongs tosocially under privileged sections and have financial capacity to take legal action. Theyare totally unaware of the Acts and entitlement of compensation. Towers and linesdamage A PART OF LAND (Survey number). For example 400 KV Lines passing over 1Hector land damages 51 Meters land as Right of Way. In I hector4850x2: 9,000 Metersa 100meters stretch of line will damage (diminishes ) 5,100 Meters as right of way.Underneath permanent structures cannot be built. Electricity Act 1910 Prohibitsplanting of Trees / crops beyond 1 0 Feet(3 Meters ), Further land will be cut into 3pieces. The value as 1 (One Hector ) Land cut into 3 pieces will have no saleability,cannot be mortgaged , or even common cropping. Each farmers land damage has toassess based on its location, facilities, etc (SC. Kerala Electricity Board vs Levisha.Ref---- ) The land value has to be based on its futuristic development opportunity(SC=======) Further the Act 2003 and the Section 164 are totally issused by the Transisssson
coipanses . The Msnsstry Of Power Governient of Indsa as well as State Energy
Departient shave Colluded sn coiplscating PROCEDURE – GETTING CONSENT – FIXING-
PAYMENT OF COMPENSETION. Detasls are provsded sn Paras -----of the enclosed note .
The isschsef of Governients are evsdent as detasled below (a) In Andhra Pradesh State
Governient sssued Works of Lscensee Rules 2007 Dt-----. The Secretary, Energy
Departient, Chasrian’s of APTRANSCO have kept iade the Gazete sn thesr possessson
for 9 years. A copy of the GAZZETEE was iade avaslable to the Andhra Pradesh Electrscsty
Regulatory Coiisssson on ======(Ref====). The Governient of Telangana ss yet to
releases st .
State Governients have DELIBATERLY DELAYED sssusng Works of Lscensee Rules for over
10 to 12 years. Why the Rules are delayed and at whose snstance, ss a iater to be
snvestigated. Dursng the persod Power Grsd and State Transisssson coipanses went about
constructing Tower and Lsnes wsthout payient of coipensation. The only eiception ss
Kerala where sn the State Governient as well as Hsgh Court have dsrected transisssson
coipanses to pay daiages for land daiaged under Towers and Lsnes ,.
Q.4. Is Power Grsd provsdsng free servscesn
Ans.No. Power Grsd ss a regsstered under coipanses act. It ss pasd wheelsng (Servsce)
charges for transistng ELECTRICITY. Dursng5 years persod of 2013-13 to 2017-18 st has
declared net prost of Rs.31,184.2 Crores.(2017-18 Prost 8238.96 Crores), It has declared
dsvsdend of Rs.7,851.36 Crores. Tai pasd ss Rs.8337.29 Crores. Tai on dsvsdend ss
Rs.1531.08 crores. Dursng 5 years the length of lsnes drawn ss 48,390 KM. Towers
constructed 120975. Fariers land daiaged under Towers & Lsnes 6,15,792 Acers
(2,49,975 hectors). Coipensation for land daiage (ROW) NIL. (Reference Power Grsd
Annual Report 2017-18 at Page 30 and 32). The salary of sweeper ss Rs. 1,47,722r- per
ionth. Ref. Eastern Power dsstrsbution (APEPDCL) Rajahiundry No. 01019612 for 01-08-
2018 -31-08-2018.
Q.5. Is Telegraph Act 1885 has any provssson for coipensation for daiagsng
landrpropertyn
Ans :- YES. There ss aiple provssson under Act 1885 , Rule 10 (d) as follows:-
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION,THE telegraph authorsty,
SHALL DO AS LITTLE DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE, AND WHEN IT HAS EXERCISED THOSE POWERS
IN REPECT OF ANY PROPERTY OTHER THAN THAT REFERRED TO IN THE CLAUSE (c) SHALL
PAY FULL COMPENSETIONM TO ALL PERSONS INTRESTED FOR ANY “DAMAGE” SUSTAINED
BY THEM BY REASON OF THE EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS”
Q.6. Why were these Act.1885, Section 10 (d), Act 2003 Rules 2006 , Supreie Court
Judgients, and decssson by States rCentral Electrscsty Regulatory Coiisssson (CERC) and
(Appellate Trsbunal for Electrscsty (ATE ) were not sipleiented by Collectors whsle sssusng
proceedsngsn
Ans:- Thss ss a dsfcult question to answer by ie! It wsll be snapproprsate for ie to wrste
that Collectors (IAS) are srresponssble or duib or arrogant! But the fact reiasns for 15
years 5 Msllson fariers lands are TOTALLY DAMAGED leavsng thei econoiscally snsecure
and socsally out casts. They are deprsved of LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTANALLY ELIGABLE
COMPENSETION, by a large prost iaksng coipany. Thss deprsvation of coipensation to 5
Msllson siall and iargsnal fariers ss done wsth the KNOWLEDGE and CONNIOVENCE of
large nuiber of Indsan Adisnsstrative Servsces ofcsals. The iute question ss whether
these IAS , who are responssble wsll be held enqusred snto and punsshed ss beyond iy
lsists .
Q.7. Has Supreie Court gsven any judgients sn regard to probleis faced by fariers due
to Electrscsty Act 2003n
Ans:-In 2006 sn S.C. Kerala Electrscsty Board Vs Lsvssha, In sc 650 (18 th May 2007). Made
followsng pronounceient .Para.10. The sstes of the land, THE DISTENCE BETWEEN THE
HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICITY lsne lasd there over, the eitent of the lsne thereon as also the
fact whether the hsgh voltage lsne possess over the siall track of land or through isddle
of the land and other ssislar relevant factors sn our opsnson would be deterisnative. The
value of the land would be a relevant factor. The owner of the land sn a gsven sstuation
iay lose hss substantive rsght to use the property for the purpose for whsch the saie was
ieant to be used “
Q.8. What are the other siportant sssues helpful to fariers to get coipensationn
Ans:- The Honourable Supreie Court of Indsa has passed iany judgients upholdsng the
rsghts of fariers so as to enable thei to get full coipensation for loss property under
Towers ,Lsnes, cropsr trees , structures (Sheds , Tube wells etc ). Detasls of Judgients and
rules are provsded sn the web.www.sndsanfariers.org (s) Land ss Huian Rsght .It cannot
be deprsved wsth out due process of Law and coipensation (ss) Desnstion of property
(sss)Daiage due to towers and lsnes ss SUBSTETIAL. (sv) Siall & Margsnal fariers are
elsgsble for coipensation for the entire land (survey) nuiber (sv) The Collectors iust si
coipensation based on each land location ,proisisty to towns, roads ,sndustry ,
snstitutions and facslsties of water , electrscsty etc. If the fariers are not satissed wsth
coipensation sied by Collector fariers can sle REVISION BEFORE REGULATORY
COMMISSION.
Details Acts-Rules -Illegal Activities by Companies- Legal issues.
S.No. Date Description of the EventPage
No’s inaffidavit
ParaNo’s in
affidavit1 Clarifcaton on Sipreme Coirt Jidgment –No.10953 of 2016
Dt.14-12-2016 On issies of -Consent of Land Owner and fxingcompensaton by District Jidge .
2 Caise of acton for fling the P. I. L.
3 Sibstantal damage of land inder High Tension TransmissionTowers and Lines.
4 Desnstion of “Diminiton of Land Valie inder Towers & lines– Supreie Court. Kerala Electrscsty Board vs Levssha Appeal(Csvsl)289 of 2006 Dt.18-05-2007
5 Defniton of Property’. .Jslu Bhas Nan Bhas vs State of GujaratSupreie Court.(Csvsl) 2111-15-1984.Dated . 20-07-1994
6 Declaration of “Right to Property as a Himan Right” S.C. SLP.(Csvsl) 28034r2011.State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kuiar
7 Deprivaton of Property Right.S.C.1953.Stae of West Bengal vsSubodh Gopal Bose.17-12-1953.SC1954,AIR92-1954,SCR.587
8 Defniton of Sibstantal Deprivaton –S.C.SCR, 1954.674. Dwaraka Das vs Sholapur Spsnnsng Mslls
9 Illegalsty of notices by Transisssson Coipanses
10 Jidicial Powers of Regilatory Commissions.Appelate TrsbunalFoe Electrscsty .(A.T.E) Appeal No.83 of 2010 Dt.07-09-2011
11 APTRANSCO not releassng Works of Lscensee Rules 2007.
12 Specsal features of Electrscsty Act 2003.
13 Coiparsson between 21st century Hsgh Tensson Towers and 19th
Telegraph Poles14 Mssuse of section 164 by Power Grsd Corporation
15 Illegal & issleadsng notices by transisssson coipanses. 16 Illegalsty of G.O.I. Gazete 2003 eieipting coipanses under
section 16417 Faslure of Dsstrsct Collector to protect faiers property rsghts18 Act 2003 ,Section 164 encroachsng on Judscsal Powers of
Regulatory Coiissssons.
19 Unconstitutional provsssons of Telegraph Act .1885.
20 Discriminaton of secton 164. Governments and citiens.
21 Vsolation of act 2003 provsssons by Transisssson Coipanses.
22 Delsberate plan to deny payient of coipensation to fariers.
23 Prost iaksng Transisssson Coipanses and thesr sllegalactivsties.
24 Unaithoriied Giidelines by Ministry of Power in 20153.
25 Illegal and unauthorszed proceedsngs by Collectors ssnce 2003.
26 Mssgusdsng Hsgh Court by slsng sllegal afdavsts.
27 Power grsd corporation issleadsng afdavsts before World Bank.
28 Giidelines for Fixing Compensaton.SC.Ref.No. 148- 1537/2000. Dt.07-01-2007
29 Importance of Following Procedire in Democracy. S.C. RanjstThakur vs Unson of Indsa. S.C.AIR.1987. S.C.2386. .
30 Right to Resist Prior Intmaton is ssental. Dilip SinghChoihan vs Gijartat Vajra Nigam (Transmission company) Gujarat Hsgh Court. CsvslrSCAr1834r2011. Dt.29-08-2013
31 Distncton -between 19th Centiry Telegraph act. 18853 and 21st
Centiry lectricity Act. Gujarat Hsgh Court.CsvslrSCAr1834r2011. Dt.29-08-2011
32 Development of society- 19th centiry & 21st centiry. GujaratHsgh Court. CsvslrSCAr1834r2011.Dt.29-08-2011.
33 Telegraph Aithority Cannot be Conferred with Powers inder lectricity Act. 1970:11-09-1966-S.C. A.I.R.1970 sc 491 (1970)3SC 851.
34 Applicability of the provisions of the Right to FairCompensaton and Transparency in land Acqiisiton,Rehabilitaton and Resetlement Act, 201 .
35 Prayer
PLACE: (FOR FILING CASES) Petitioner.
DATE: ------
CHRONOLOGICAL / RUNNING IND X.
S.NO xhibit Descripton of Dociment Date ofDociment
Date of flingof Dociment
Page No.
1 Servsce Certiscate
2 Court Fee
3 Wrst Fee
4 Anneiure
5 Wrsten Subisssson
6 Lsst of Events
7 Material Papers
8 A – 1. Photo of 400 KV Hsgh Tensson Tower
9 A – 2. Power Grsd Notice 2013
10 A – 3. Power Grsd Notice 2017
11 A – 4. Rules by Governient of A.P sn 2007.
12 A – 5. G.O. No.6 – 6.03.2017 AuthorszsngCollectors by Governient of A.P.
13 A –6. G.O. No.83 –20.06.2017 Fsisng coipensation by Governient of A.P.
14 A –7. Gusdelsnes by GOI, Dated. 15.10.2015 Fsisng coipensation
15 A –8. Coiion Model proforia for getng eieiption Under Section . 164, Issued by GOI,
16 A –9. Lsne detasls Advertiseient sn News Papers.
17 A –10. Hsghlsghts of Agrsculture Census 2010-11.
18 A –11. Stateient of detasls of Power Grsd prost dsvsdend Tai wsth operative results.
19 A –12. Power Grsd Annual Report.
20 A –13. Collectors Illegal orders.
21 A –14. Illegal afdavst by Power Grsd Corporation.
22 A –15. Power Grsd Stateient to World Bank.
23 A –16. Land Acqussstion Act.2013r15.
Place: Petitioner
1. Clarifcaton on Sipreme Coirt JUDGM NT OF 2016 ON CONS NT OF LAND OWN R AND
FIXING OF COMP NSATION BY DISTRICT JUDG .
The sssue of that the Honorable Supreie Court of Indsa sn respect that the decssson rendered
on 14-12-2016 sn Csvsl Appeal No.10953 of 2016 & batch sn the case of Power Grsd corporation
of Indsa ltd, vs Century Teitiles & Industrses ltd, held that there ss no need for consent of land
owner and that that aggrieved has to approach District Jidges for compensaton. The
decssson sn the above case is not relevant to PIL fled by the pettoner. The Power Grsd
Corporation of Indsa as well as other transisssson coipanses are placsng iuch relsance upon
the decssson rendered on 14.12.2016 sn the above case .
Para. 21. Supreie Court had held as hereunder sn regard to the applscabslsty of Rule 3(1) of
The Lscensees Rules, 2006. Section 10 of the Indsan Telegraph Act, 1885 eipowers the
Telegraph Authorsty to place and iasntasn a telegraph lsne under, over, along or across and
posts sn or upon any siiovable property. The provssson of Section 10 (b) of the Indsan
Telegraph Act, 1885 iakes st abundantly clear that whsle acqusrsng the power to lay down
telegraph lsnes, the Central Governient does not acqusre any rsght other than that of user sn
the property. Further, Section 10 (d) of the Indsan Telegraph Act, 1885 oblsges the Telegraph
Authorsty to ensure that st causes as lstle daiage as posssble and that the Telegraph
Authorsty shall also be oblsged to pay full coipensation to all persons snterested for any
daiage sustasned by thei by reason of the eiercsse of those powers.As Power Grsd ss gsven
the powers of Telegraph Authorsty, Rule 3(I) of the Rules, 2006 ceases to apply sn the case of
Power Grsd by vsrtue of eiecution clause contasned sn sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 whsch reads as
under:
Para. "3 (4). - Nothsng contasned sn thss rule shall efect the ‘powers conferred upon any lscensee
under Section of the Act."
We, thus, have no hesstation sn rejecting the arguient of the wrst petitioner that the sipugned
action of the Power Grsd was contrary, to the provsssons of the Electrscsty Act, 2003. "
A perusal of the aforesasd observations of the Hon'ble Supreie Court would clearly reveal that as
Power Grsd ss treated as an authorsty under the Indsan. Telegraph Act, 1885 and that st acqusres all
such powers whsch are vested sn a Telegraph authorsty, under the provsssons of the Indsan
Telegraph Act, 1885 sncludsng the power to elsisnate any obstruction sn the laysng of power
. · . . ·· ·
transisssson lsnes and that legsslature had not· peristed any ksnd of sipedsient r obstruction sn
achsevsng thss objective through the scheie of the Indsan Telegraph Act.
It ss subisted, wsth respect, that the aforesasd decssson rendered by Hon'ble Supreie Court of
Indsa ss clearly dsstingusshable on facts. Varsous facets of law were nesther argued nor brought to
the ksnd notice of the Hon'ble Supreie Court of Indsa and the decssson was rendered sn the
particular facts of that case wsthout proper arguient.. It ss well recognszed that a decssson
should be treated as gsven per sncur-ai when st ss gsven sn sgnorance of the teris of a (statute
or of a rule havsng the force of a statute. So far as the aforesasd judgient shows, no arguient
was addressed to Hon'ble Judges on the question of the applscabslsty of provsssons of the specsal.
Statute vsz., The Electrscsty Act, 2003 whsch can be suiiarszed as hereunder:-
The Electrscsty Act, 2003 ss a specsal statute dealsng wsth subject iater of electrscsty. Section 174
of the Electrscsty Act 2003 contasns a non-obstante clause whsch provsdes that sf there ss any
eipress confsct wsth any other Act, the provsssons of the 2003 Act would prevasl. The Telegraph
Act 1885 does not contasn any such non-obstante clause. Hence, sf there ss any snconssstency
between 2003 Act and the 1885 Act, the provsssons of the 2003 Act shall prevasl.
Provsssons Sections.67 and 68 of 2003 Act would be applscable to all the lscensees srrespective of
whether they are eipowered to eiercsse powers. of the Telegraph Authorsty under section 164
of 2003 Act or not. In teris of sub-section (2) of Section 67, the approprsate Governient has
been authorszed to fraie rules sn relation to cases and csrcuistances sn whsch the consent sn
wrsting, snter alsa, of the owner or occupser of the land shall be requsred for carrysng out works,
the nature and persod of notice to be gsven by the lscensee before carrysng out works, the
procedure and ianner of conssderation of objection and suggestions recesved sn accordance wsth
such notice, the authorsty whsch iay grant perisssson sn the csrcuistances where the owner or
occupser objects to carrysng out of works and deterisnation and payient of coipensation to
persons afected by works under Section 67.
Power Grsd Corporation despste besng conferred wsth powers of the Telegraph Authorsty under
1885 Act by the Approprsate Governient, have been granted perisssson to establssh over head
lsnes as per iandatory requsreient under Section 68 of the 2003 Act. Thus st ss clear that
provsssons of Sections 67 & 68 are bsndsng also on the Respondents notwsthstandsng the
notiscation under Section I64 of 2003 Act.
It cannot be debated that non-obstante clause contasned sn Section 51 of the 1910 Act has been
purposely oisted sn Section 164 of 2003 Act. Thss would sndscate that the prsiacy has been gsven
to the Rules whsch iay be fraied by the Governient. As a iater of fact, sn the 'Works of
Lscensee Rules 2006', the Central Governient sntroduced Rule 3 (4) wsth a specssc purpose of
brsngsng back the efect of non -obstante clause occurrsng sn Section 51 sn order to overrsde the
efect of sub-rules (I) to (3) of Rule 3 whsch provsdes for consent of land owners.
Thus, the Central Governient by fraisng the rules has eipressly chosen to gsve overrsdsng efect
of notiscation under Sec.164 over the requsreient of the consent of the land owners. Under Sec.
I64 of the 2003 Act, the Governient iay accept the powers of the Telegraph Authorsty under the
Telegraph Act subject to the iodsscations and lsistations that iay be thought st. Therefore, st ss
for the Governient to decsde as to what rules are to be fraied and to what eitent the powers of
the Telegraph Authorsty were "to be eitended. Thus, st can be conclude that Sec. I64 as st stands
does not have any overrsdsng efect on any part of Sec.67 of the 2003 Act.
If the sntention of law iakers was to provsde Section 164 wsth power to overrsde other sections
and to have saie powers as Section 51 of the Indsan Electrscsty Act 1910, the section would have
been worded dsferently and would have started as "Notwsthstandsng anythsng contasned sn
Section 67(2) or rules fraied there under..."
The provsssons of the Sections 12 to 18 of the 1910 Act are applscable sn teris of Section 185 (2)
(b) of the 2003 Act. Therefore, by vsrtue of Section 174 of the 2003 Act, Sections 12 to 18 of the
1910 Act would have the precedence over any other legsslation. Thss would iake st clear that
even assuisng that there was a confsct between the provsssons of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and
the provsssons of the 1 910 Act, the later Act would prevasl.
Merely because certasn powers of the Telegraph Act had been conferred on a Lscensee, st does
not iean that the Lscensee has becoie a Telegraph Authorsty as desned sn the Telegraph Act.
Ssiply because certasn powers 'of Telegraph Authorsty are avaslable to a Lscensee, st does not
iean that all the rsghts and lsabslsties of the Lscensee would be governed by the Telegraph Act.
Afer enactient of 2003 Act, Indsan Power Sector ss governed by thss Act. Section 67(4) confers
power upon the Approprsate Coiisssson to resolve dssputes between land owner and the
lscensee. Thss power ss untraiieled and ss not sipasred by the rules fraied under Section 67(2).
Rules fraied under section 67(2) would govern the worksng of lscensee and not the Coiisssson "
Pronounceients of law, whsch are not part of the ratio decsded are classed as obster dscta and are
not authorstative. Wsth all due respect to the Hon'ble Judges who passed the aforesasd judgient,
st ss subisted that the sasd judgient ss not bsndsng upon thss Hon'ble Court sn vsew of the
particular facts and csrcuistances of the case and as the saie was delsvered wsthout proper
arguient and wsthout reference to the relevant provsssons of the Act conferrsng eipress power sn
overrsdsng Sec. 164 of the Act.
In the case of Munscspal Corporation of Delhs vs Gurnai Kaur reported sn AIR 1989 SC 38,
Hon'ble Supreie Court of Indsa referrsng to precedential value of a decssson rendered by st sn a
wrst petition sled under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indsa, held as follows :-
" A decssson should be treated as gsven per sncur-ai when st ss gsven sn sgnorance of the teris of a
statute or of a rule havsng the force of a statute. So far as the order shows, no arguient was
addressed to the Court on the question or not whether any dsrection could properly be iade
coipellsng the Munscspal Corporation to construct a stall at the pstchsng sste of a paveient
squater.
Professor P.J. Fstzgerald, edstor of the Saliond on Jurssprudence, 12th edn. eiplasns the concept
of sub sslentio at p. I53 sn these words: "A decssson passes sub sslentio, sn the technscal sense that
has coie to be atached to that phrase, when the particular posnt of law snvolved sn the decssson
ss not percesved by the court or present to sts isnd. The Court iay conscsously decsde sn favors of
one party because of posnt A, whsch st conssders and pronounces upon. It iay be shown,
however, that logscally the court should not have decsded sn favors of the particular party unless st
also decsded posnt B sn hss favors; but posnt B was not argued or conssdered by the court. In such
csrcuistances, although posnt B was logscally snvolved sn the facts and although the case had a
specssc outcoie, the decssson ss not an authorsty on posnt B. Posnt B ss sasd to pass sub sslentio.
In Gerard v. Worth of Parss Ltd. (k)., [1936] 2 All E.R. 905 (C.A.), the only posnt argued was on the
question of prsorsty of the clasiant's debt, and, on thss arguient besng heard, the Court granted
the order. No conssderation was gsven to the question whether a garnsshee order could properly
be iade on an account standsng sn the naie of the lsqusdator. When, therefore, thss very posnt
was argued sn a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal sn Lancaster Motor Co. (London)
Ltd. v. Breisth, Ltd., (1941] I KB 675. The Court held stself not bound by sts prevsous decssson. Ssr
Wslfrsd Greene, M.R., sasd that he could not help thsnksng that the posnt now rassed had been
delsberately passed sub sslentio by counsel sn order that the posnt of substance isght be
decsded. We went on to say that the posnt had to be decsded by the earlser 'court before st could
iake the order whsch st dsd; nevertheless, ssnce st was decsded "wsthout arguient, wsthout
reference to the crucsal 'words of the rule, and wsthout any cstation of authorsty", st was not
bsndsng and would not be followed. Precedents sub sslentio and wsthout arguient are of no
ioient. Thss rule has ever ssnce been followed. One of the chsef reasons for the doctrsne of
precedent ss that a iater that has once been fully argued and decsded should not be allowed to
be reopened. The wesght accorded to dscta varses wsth the type of dsctui. Mere casual
eipresssons carry no wesght at all. Not every passsng eipressson of a Judge, however eisnent, can
be treated as an ei cathedra stateient, havsng the wesght of authorsty. "
It is therefore sibmited, with respect that the decision rendered in the case of the Power Grid
Corp. of India Ltd., vs. Centiry Textles & Indistries Ltd., is clearly distngiishable and has no
applicaton either to the facts or the issies of the law that arise for consideraton in these
proceedings before this Honorable High Coirt, In W.P. (PIL) 180 of 2017.
2. CAUS OF ACTION FOR FILING TH P. I. L.
The main caise of acton in the PIL (i) “is agriciltire land owned by a farmer is considered as a
property right inder consttiton of India? (ii) can the farmers landed property (agriciltire land)
right be sibstantally damaged/ valie totally rediced / diminiton withoit die process of law?
(iii) Can a proft making company deprive CITIZ NS OF TH IR PROP RTY WITH FOLLOWING DU
PROC SS OF LAW BY INFORMING TH LAND OWN R OF HIS NTITL M NT AND PAYM NT OF
COMP NS TION? (iv) IS T L GRAPH ACT 18853 and riles of not getng consent owner for
constricton of Telegraph Poles and wires be made applicable to lectric Towers and lines in 21 st
centiry? (v) Can damage to land inder Telegraph Poles and Lines Is Comparable to High Tension
lectric lines and Towers? Can property of citiens be damaged withoit assessing the damage and
payment inder any Act of Parliament ?
. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAG OF LAND UND R HIGH T NSION TRANSMISSION TOW RS AND LIN S.
ach 400 KV Tower wesghs 15 MT, requsres 1000. Sq ieters land for foundation. Under 400 KV
lsnes 46 + 5.5 Meters land ss requsred for Rsght of Way and Msnsiui clearance (Total 51. 5
ieters r 154.5.feet) between conductor and trees. each km line permanently Diminishes /
Damages. 53.53 Hectors land ( 14/153 Acers ). (ANNUXUR -1)
4. D FINITION OF “DIM NSION OF LAND VALU .” - SUPR M COURT D CISION.
Sipreme Coirt of India has given giidelines for fxing dimension of land inder towers and
lines (SC sn Case. Appeal (Csvsl) 289 of 2006, Kerala Electrscsty Board vs Levssha, Judgient,
Dt.18-05-2007) as follows:-
“the sites of land , the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid over, the extent of
line there on, as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of
land or throigh the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in oir opinion woild
be the determinatve. the valie of it woild also be a relevant factor. the owner of the land
firther more , in a given sitiaton may loose his sistentatve right to ise the property for the
pirpose for which the same was meant to be ised “.based on the S.C. Jidgment, the Kerala
High Coirt CRP no. 4 2 of 2010 dated .26.053.2014 passed orders directng transmission
company to pay . however the power grid or APTRANSCO or TSTRANSCO did not follow the
sipreme coirt directons since 2007.
53. D FINITION OF PROP RTY - SUPR M COURT D CISION.
The Sipreme Coirt has defned property as following - property in legal sense-giaranteed
and protected. sc 1994:- Jili Bhai Nan Bhai Vs State of Gijarat, 20-07-1994-s.c.civil.2111-153-
1984.“Property sn legal sense ieans an “Aggregate of rsghts whsch are Guaranteed and
protected by law” st eitends to every specses of valuable rsght and snterest, iore particularly,
ownershsp and eiclussve rsght to a thsng, the rsght to dsspose of the thsng sn every legal way, to
possess st, to use st and to eiclude everyone else froi snterfersng wsth st. The doisnson or sn
desnste rsght of use of or dssposstion whsch one way lawfully eiercsse over particular thsngs or
subjects ss called property. The eiclussve rsght of possesssng, enjoysng, and dsspossng of a thsng
ss property sn legal paraieters.“Therefore The Word Property Connotes very Thing Which Is
Sibject Of Ownership, Corporal Or Incorporeal, Tangible Or Intangible ,Visible Or Invisible ,
Real Or Personal, very Thing That Has An xchangeable Valie Or Which Goes To Make Up –
Wealth – state – Statis “.
6. D CLARATION OF RIGHT TO PROP RTY AS A HUMAN RIGHT – SUPR M COURT D CISION.
S.C. 2011 :-SC.SLP.(Civil) 280 4/2011 State of Haryana vs Mikesh Kimar. Held that “The
rsght to property ss now conssdered to be not only constitutional or statutory rsght but also a
huian rsght. Huian rsghts have already been conssdered sn reali of sndsvsdual rsghts such as
rsght to health, rsght to lsvelshood, rsght to shelter and eiployient etc. But now huian rsghts
are gasnsng a iulti-faceted dsiensson. Rsght to Property ss also conssdered very iuch a part
of the new dsiensson. Therefore, even clasi of adverse possessson has to be read sn that
conteit.
7. D PRIVATION OF PROP RTY RIGHT” - SC 1953 :-State of West Bengal vs Sibodh Gopal
Bose.17-12-1953 -SC.19534.AIR.92.19534, SCR.5387. It held that “ No cut and drsed test can be
foriulated as to whether sn a gsven case the owner ss deprsved of hss property. Each case
iust be decsded as st arsses on sts own facts”. “Broadly speaking it may be said an
abridgement woild be so sibstantal, as to amoint to deprivaton within the meaning of
artcle, 1, in efect it with from the possession and enjoyment of the ownership or serioisly
Impaired ise and enjoyment by him, or materially rediced its valie.”. Here sn the case of
petitioner the deprsvation of property ss huge whsch has totally reduced the value.
8. D FINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL D PRIVATION :- SUPR M COURT D CISION.
Sipreme Coirt. SCR (1954).674. Dwarka Das vs Sholapur Spsnnsng islls held,
The SC held that “by sibstantal deprivaton is meant the sort of deprivaton that
sibstantally robs a man of those atribites of enjoyment which normally accompany rights
to or an interest in property. The form is inessental. It is the sibstance that one mist
seek.” Herein the land inderneath afer constricton of Towers and lines will remain in the
name of owner farmer. The learned Jidges FURTH R “Made Observaton Of -- Deprivaton –
Illisionary Phantom Title –Leaving The Mere Hisk Of Title : As of 2018 property is declared
as Himan Right .Herein die to towers and lines a farmers land is Mitlated. Bit
compensaton is denied on variois fimsy groinds of “ Land Will Remain In The Name Of
Farmers—Farmers Land Is Not Acqiired “- It is becaise most of the farmers are small
holders and illiterate, have no economic capacity to pirsie the issies legally or throigh
administraton For over 153 (200 -2018 ) years the exploitaton by companies is happening
inchecked.
9. ILL GALITY OF NOTIC S BY TRANSMISSION COMPANI S.
Notces issied by Transmission Companies are contrary to lectricity Act 200 and Riles
2006. Firther they illegal and violaton Consttitonal Right to property. In fact they are
criminal trespassers into farmers (private) land. Transmission companies even thoigh
licensed Under Act 200 by Regilatory Commission are not following procedire as
stpilated inder Riles 2006. They claim that afer empowerment inder Secton 164 of
Telegraph act 18853, they need not follow any Riles 2006 of seeking consent or seek
Collector’s permission Under Rie (2) . This is denying land owner/farmers of right
/provision for fling revision inder Rile 1 (1) 1 before the Commission. It is also
encroaching on the powers conferred on the Regilatory Commission.
10. JUDICIAL POW RS OF R GULATORY COMMISSIONS.
Appellate Tribinal For lectricity (Ate) Upholding Right Of Commissions. In case No. 2011,
Appeal. NO.8 0F 2010, DT.07-09-2011, held that The Regilatory Commissions have power
to decide compensaton.(Para 93). Any dsspute arsssng sn regard to coipensation would have
to be resolved by the STATE COMMISSION. What is confising to farmers is , if the Collector
issies compensaton proceedings inder Telegraph Act, 18853, how can a land owner farmers
fle revision inder Works of Licensee Riles 2006, Rile ( ) . Herein Companies issied
notces inder Telegraph Act 18853. The Collector also issied proceedings only inder
Telegraph Act. The Works of Lscensee Riles 2006 are not referred to in the notce given to
land owner farmers by the companies. The transmission companies leters have not
informed the Collector aboit the provisions of Riles 2006. The proceedings by the
Collectors do not refer to Riles 2006. Not referring to Riles 2006 in the NOTIC OR
COLL CTORS PROC DDINGS will deny the land owner famers of HIS RIGHT TO FIL
R V SION.
11. APTRANSCO NOT R L ASING WORKS OF LIC NS RUL S 2007.
I sibmit for 9 years ofcials of APTRANSCO/ TSTRANSCO kept, Riles 2007 away from
Collectors, farmers and even Regilatory Commissions. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, vide
G.O.Ms.No.24 Dated 27-02-2007 issied Works of Licensee Riles, 2007 (Annexire-4) as
giidelines for APTRANSCO. However the GO. 24 of 2007 was not made available to the
Collectors or to the Andhra Pradesh lectricity Regilatory Commission and to piblic. A copy
of the orders issied by the Department of nergy shows that it is kept with APTRANSCO for
9 years. The G.O. MS. No.6 dated 06.0 .2017 (Annexire.53) was made available to the
Collectors by the, Prsncspal Secretary, Energy Departient, Govt of A.P. Further vsde G.O. RT.
No. 8 . Dated 20-06-2017 (Annexire-6) The Principal Secretary informed the Collectors, to
pay compensaton for towers and lines and also R o W details. Shockingly similar directons
are not taken by Government of Telangana tll now.
GO.No.6 of 2017 was sssued based on a leter dated 05-11-2017 froi the Secretary, A.P.
Electrscsty Regulatory Coiisssson. (Ref.2 of G.O.6 of 2017). The Prsncspal Secretary, Energy
snforied the Dsstrsct Collectors, about the eisstence of hss Departients sssusng of Works of
Lscense Rules on 27-02-2007 and that as of 06-03-2017 ,afer careful eiaisnation of the
iater, the Collectors are eipowered to eiercsse the powers bestowed on thei vsde Rules
2007.
G.O.RT. No.83 Dated 20-06-2017, the Prsncspal Secretary, Energy Govt. of A.P. dsrected the
Dsstrsct Collectors of Andhra Pradesh, snforisng thei about Governient of Indsa Gusdelsnes
Date.3r7r2015,(Annexire.7) sisng coipensation for loss of land value under towers and lsnes
. Surprsssngly GOI recoiiended payient of coipensation @ 85% of land value under
towers, whsch ss sncreased to 100 % by Govt of AP, and GOI, coipensation under lsnes froi
15% reduced to 10%. The Gusde lsnes by Msnsstry of Power GOI of 2015 and order of Secretary,
Energy of AP, sndscates that the coipensation by Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa, a
Governient of Indsa coipany and APTRANSCO a Governient of Andhra Pradesh coipany
dsd not pay coipensation for loss of land value under Towers and lsnes froi Act 2003 and
Rules 2006 r2007. The Electrscsty Act 2003 clasis that Governients have coipletely
dsstanced froi snterfersng sn powerr electrscsty afasrs. But sn realsty both GOI and State
Governient got eieiption under Section 164 froi followsng Rules and issused the Power
Of Telegraph Authorsty to cheat and deprsve faiers of thesr legally entitled coipensation. It ss
to be noted that Sensor governient adisnsstrators have been worksng as CEO of Generation,
transisssson and dsstrsbution coipanses. They have used all thesr ianspulative skslls of Act
2003, section 164 provssson to avosd coipensation to isllsons of helpless siall fariers sn the
reiote vsllages across the country. Indecently these CEO have been bestowed iany honours
for thesr outstandsng and successful ianageient of coipanses.
12. SP CIAL F ATUR S OF L CTRICITY ACT 200 .
The Act 2003 ss iade wsth outstandsng features, so as iake POWER SECTOR sndependent and
efcsent. Rules 2006 iakes st oblsgatory for the lscensee transisssson coipany to seek
consent Under Rule 3 (1)(a). Legally seeksng consent , iakes st oblsgatory on the part of
lscensee to provsde land owner followsng detasls :- (1)The purpose ( 2) Detasls of daiage to
the landr property due to towers and lsnes( 3) Ofer of coipensation (4) Naie & address of
the person to be contacted sn the coipany (5) Duration of the ofer (6) Payient duration. The
works of lscensee rules 2006, iake the coipany oblsgatory to sssue ofer to every sndsvsdual
land owner separately.
I subist that sf the land owner refuses consent, the lscensee has to get wrsten perisssson
froi the Dsstrsct Collector. The Collectors has to sssue proceedsngs only under rule 2006 rule
3(2) afer hearsng the representation. The coipensation siation has to be done for each
farier. The coipany has to iake payient afer whsch the Collector wsll gsve perisssson sn
wrsting to the coipany to sipleient works. The Collectors proceedsngs iust be under rule
3(2). Under rule 3 (3) every order iade by Collector under sub rule (1) shall be subject to
revssson by the Coiisssson. As per Act 2003, the orders of the Coiisssson can be appealed
before the Appellate Trsbunal for Electrscsty. (A.T.E.).
Act 2003, has iade aiple provssson under Section 67 for fraisng Works of Lscensee Rules to
be iade by APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTS. “Thss part deals wsth works requsred to be carrsed
out by lscensees (For laysng down or placsng electrscsty supply lsnes etc), procedural
requsreient for placsng overhead lsnes etc. Thss part has precedent sn the Indsan electrscsty act
1910. (sn Section 12 to 19). Section 67 (1) It has provssson for opensng up of streets, raslways
etc. Section 67 (1)(a) deals wsth open and break any street, raslway or traiways. 67 (1)
(b)sewers , tunnels , pspes Section 67 (c)(d)(e)(f) gsves gusdelsnes sn dealsng wsth snstitutions of
Governients, roads, raslways, iunscspalsties, local boards etc.
Section 67 (2) Authorszes Approprsate Governients May, by rules iade sn thss behalf. Section
67 (2)(a) the cases and csrcuistances’ sn whsch the consent sn wrsting of the approprsate
Governient, local authorsty, owner or occupser, as the case iay be , shall be requsred for
carrysng out works; Section 67 (2)(b) the authorsty whsch iay grant perisssson sn the
csrcuistances where owner or occupser objects to the carrysng out of works; Section 67 (2)(c)
nature and persod of notice to be gsven b the lscensee; Section 67 (2)(d) prescrsbes procedure
for rasssng objections 67 (2)(e) Deterisnation And Payient Of Coipensation Or Rent To The
Afected Persons By Works Under Thss Section. Section 67 (2) (f) Section 67 (2) (p) procedures
for varsous sssues to be followed by lscensee.
Section 67 (3) A Lscensee Shall ,In Eiercsse Of Any Of The Powers Conferred By Or Under Thss
Section And The Rules Made There Under, Cause As Lstle Daiage, Detrsient And
Inconvensence As May Be, And Shall Make Full Coipensation For Any Daiage , Detrsient Or
Inconvensence Caused By Hsi Or By Any One Eiployed By Hsi”
The paper publscation (Anneiure – 9) seeksng objection froi publsc to be sent to Chsef
Engsneer of the transisssson coipany ss sllegal. But the Act 2003 and Rules 2006 have
conferred power to recesve objection only by the Dsstrsct Collector and Regulatory
Coiissssons.”
Electrscsty Act 2003 Key Features (Ref. S.K. Cheterjee, 3rd edstion .page 13) are as follows :-
The Act 2003 ss iade to develop coipetition wsth regulatory overssght sn the fraie work
around the electrscsty act 2003, to encourage efcsency sn perforiance and regulatory
overssght, to safe guard consuier‘s snterest and at the saie tiie ensure recovery of costs for
the snvestor.--Power is intoxicatng. Shedding of power therefore needs coirage and
convicton. The Government has envisaged these virties throigh new law. There is complete
distancing of Government from Regilatons and commercial actvites in the new scenario of
the law--------the act distances from all forms of Regilatons -----the State lectricity Boards
down the decades =======--.-----it has bred inefciency that has CORRAD D TH SYST M
FROM WITHIN .------the new law strikes at very root of ---- this malaise by pitng an end to
the monopoly -----coipetition ss the hall iark of the new legsslation------Regilatory
Commissions are nvisaged as Watch Dogs---the provision for Appellate Tribinal for
lectricity meets the need for a specialiied coirt to deal only with electricity related cases.
The Parlsaient conssdered Electrscsty Act 2003 as a progresssve legsslation sn true sense”. Act
has iany specssc provssson of Section 2. Lsisting role of Governients have National Electrscsty
Polscy to be revsewed regularly, Sec.4. national polscy for rural area & non-conventional energy,
S. 12 to 24 –Lscenssng procedure 67. Works of lscensees Rules to provsde gusdance to lscensees,
S. 76 to 109 constituting of Regulatory Coiissssons, 110 to 125 powers of Appellate trsbunal
for Electrscsty and also. 126 to 130 and 135 to 152 for Investigation, enforceient ofences and
penalties.
1 . Comparison Between 21st Centiry High Tension Towers And 19th Telegraph Poles:-
The consequence of constructing Transisssson towers and lsne (WORKS) wsll perianently
daiage the landed property of a Land owner. It ss necessary to evaluate “dsference between
a 19th century Telegraph Poler lsne and a 21st century Hsgh Tensson Transisssson Towers and
lsnes. A Telegraph Pole Wesghs iere, 200 kg and occupses 10 to 15 SFT. They are iostly by
ssde of Raslway Tracks or adjosnsng roads and are not hariful to HUMANS OR ANIMALS. In
coiparsson, the iasssve and awesoie Transmission Tower of 400 kv weighs 153 Metric Tons
with hige and wide foindatons to with stand weight of the towers and wind velocity. ach
400 KV tower occipies 1000 sq. Meters and needs 46 meters ( 1530 feet ) Right of Way and
another 10 feet margin from lines. For one kilometre of 400 KV transmission line 4/ 53
hectors (153 acres ) land will be wasted permanently . It ss dangerous to huians and ansials
whsle passsng under lsnes, especsally dursng rasns. In legal and econoiscs terisnology the land
ss perianently daiaged and sts value wsll be eternally dsisnsshed. (process of reduction -
New –websste). Further electrscsty Act 1910 prohsbsts land owners under towers and lsnes,
froi construction of perianent structure of houses or factorses or schools or coiiercsal
coipleies. Even Tress rcrops whsch grow hsgher than 10 feet, are not allowed underneath
transisssson lsnes. The hsgh tensson transisssson lsnes have electroiagnetic radsation efect.
It ss Scsentiscally approved that eiposure of radsation ss lskely to cause cancer or tuiour or
genetic dssorders to Huians and Ansials.
14. MISUS OF S CTION 164 BY POW R GRID.
Details of misise Secton 164 by Power Grid corporaton of India Ltd in connivance with
Ofcials in Ministry Of power In Government of India.
The Section 164 has a provssson “Eiercsse Of Powers Of Telegraph Authorsty” –“ In Certain
Cases” Electrscsty act 2003 was passed on 26-05-2003. The Act had sncorporated sections as
stated above sncludsng Rules for Lscensees and Regulatory Coiissssons. However on 24-12-
200 , Ministry of Power GOI, inder Secton 164 , issied a gaiete No. 1148 ,S .O, 146 ( )
Dt.24-12-200 “Where Power Grid Corporaton Of India(PGCIL) ------A Government
Company ----- For Proper Coordinaton Of Works Vested For xercising Power Of The
Telegraph Act –18853-------The Above Aithoriiaton Is Sibject To The Reqiirement Provisions
Of lectricity Act 200 And Riles Made There Under “.
153. ILL GAL & MISL ADING NOTIC S BY TRANSMISSION COMPANI S.
Froi 24-12-2003 onwards PGCIL sssued “Notice under Indsan Telegraph Act Of 1885. The notice
snforis the land owner stating that st ss a Governient Coipany eipowerient under Act 1885,
and lskely daiage to cropr trees and coipensation as per revenue departient assessient. The
notice dsd not speak of daiage to owners land value under towers and lsnes. It has not gsven
detasls of Rules under section 67. The notice dsd gsve no ofer for loss of land value under towers
and lsnes. Nor st snforied the land owner of hss rsghts under works of lscensee Rules 2006r2007 to
rasse objection. The owner ss not snforied about hss rsght to sle objection before the Collector
and revssson before the Regulatory Coiisssson.
Under Telegraph Authorsty under Telegraph Act 1885 enables Telegraph departient to construct
Telegraph Poles & Lsnes sn any prsvate land wsthout consent of the land owner. Utilszsng the
provsssons of 164, the saie thuib rules of Telegraph Act 1885, Section 10 ss adopted by PGCIL
and others. The land owners are densed coipensation on the preteit that, even afer
Transisssson lsnes and Towers pass over the lands, the ownershsp reiasns sn the naie of land
owner and that the fariers, can continue hss cultivation. Further PGCIL argues that the faiers
lands are not acqusred therefore need not pay coipensation. The fact that “Die to Hige Towers
and Lines with lectromagnetc Field, entre land valie Diminishes” is not taken into
consideraton since 200 , by the Transmission companies or District Magistrates and also High
Coirts.
16. ILL GALITY OF G.O.I. GAZ TT 200 X MPTING COMPANI S UND R S CTION 164 -
The Msnsstry of Power, Governient of Indsa, New Delhs, has delsberately conspsred and
connsved wsth Governient Transisssson Coipanses to bypass provsssons of Act 2003 and
Rules 2006, and Rules 2007 sn AP .It ss done due to the fact that Electrscsty Boards and the
Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa and State Transisssson Coipanses are ianaged by
adisnsstrative servsces of governients. The Msnsstry of Power sn order to bypass the Works
of Lscensee under, Section 67 and also Works of Lscensee Rules 2006, GSR. 217 (E) Dated 18-
04-2006, Msnsstry of Power GOI prescrsbed a Coiion Model Pro-Foria (Annexire -8) To
Get Eieiption By All Transisssson Coipanses. The procedure prescrsbed wsll enable
Transisssson coipanses get eieiption froi Works of lscensees Rules. The Msnsstry of Power
iade functionsng of Governient coipanses coifortable and ssiple. What the Governient
Coipanses needs to do Is Fsll up The Pro-foria - Publssh Scheie In 2 News Papers – Wast
For 2 Months – Send Leter And Eieiption, Under 164 Is Granted.
“The Pro-foria sssued by Under Secretary, Msnsstry of Power, G.O.I , to gsve powers of
Telegraph Authorsty under section 164 to Transisssson coipanses” ss sllegal and
Unconstitutional . Act 2003, Sections 164 ss as Follows Eiercsse of Powers of Telegraph
Authorsty - “In Certasn Cases”. Act 2003 wordsng “IN CERTAIN CASES” ss sndscative of specsal
or eiergency sstuations faced by a sndsvsdual transisssson coipany rlscensee, where sn the
lscensee cannot adopt procedure of Act 2003, Section 67, or works of lscensee rules 2006. The
words are sndscative of gsvsng telegraph authorsty powers only sparsngly – each project, based
on specssc sstuation. The applscant iust gsve reasonsng and csrcuistances to obtasn
authorsty. Instead, Msnsstry of Power prescrsbes a coiion applscation to be adopted for all
transisssson coipanses to clasi Telegraph Authorsty and there by eieiption to follow Rules.
By provsdsng Eieiption froi Works of Lscensee Rules” The Objective Of Specsal Act 2003 ss
bypassed and snvalsdated. The reasons for issuse and abuse of Section 164 By Msnsstry of
Power GOI, could be to deny legally entitled coipensation to sllsterate fariers who are
sgnorant and sncapable of understandsng the coiplscation of Act 2003 and Act 1885. Another
reason could be declarsng huge prosts as shown by the PGCIL and State Transisssson
coipanses whsch wsll dsrectly benest the adisnsstrators of PGCIL, and State Transisssson
coipanses.
PGCIL or any State Transisssson Coipany do not requsre eieiption under Section 164.
Coipanses have provssson for getng lscensee froi Regulatory Coiisssson. For PGCIL r
APTRANSCOrTSTRANSCO, a project proposal and a detasled feassbslsty reports sncludsng
survey route iap (Gsvsng detasls of survey nuiber, vsllage naie etc) wsll be conducted. The
project wsll peg iark location of Towers and lsnes whsch enables to assess daiage to the land
and can prepare estiiates of land coipensation. It has to get clearances froi Envsronient
Msnsstry and Fsnancsal Approvals. As PGCILrAPTRANSCO rTSTRANSCO, lsnes passes over
Raslways, National Hsgh ways, Irrsgation canals. They have to follow Rules 2006 and iust get
by wrsten perisssson froi these snstitutions as there ss no eieiption under Act 2003 (Rule 4
to Rule 12) and Section 164. The process for PGCIL and for other coipanses sipleienting
project work through contractor by tendersng and agreeients wsll also requsre tiie. Froi
the day, the project ss envssaged, till coipletion wsll take 5r6 years. In these csrcuistances
there ss no need for Msnsstry of Power GOI and State Governients confer Section 164 powers
of Telegraph Authorsty on Governient Transisssson Coipanses. The eieiption of rules,
2006 and 2007 are only for fariers (prsvate) landsn It ss assuied that the issuse and abuse
of Telegraph Act 1885 provsssons are only to avosd paysng coipensation to Fariers.
The POWER GRID and STATE Coipanses have sufcsent tiie to follow procedure as per Rules
2006r2007. They have sufcsent tiie to seek consent and snstiate negotiation for payient of
coipensation to land owner dependsng upon daiage, location, land area requsreient.. The
land owner can be persuaded to get consent by followsng procedure under Works of Lscensee
Rules 2006, Rules 3 (1) to gsve notice to land owners for consent. If the owner refuses PGCIL
ofer of coipensation, PGCIL has provssson under Rules 3(2) to get perisssson sn wrsting froi
Dsstract Collector. Collector proceedsngs under rules 2006 wsll enable land owners to sle
revssson for enhanced coipensation before the approprsate Coiisssson. But PGCIL froi
date of passsng the Act 2003, has not showed snclsnation to follow Rules Or Any Procedure or
any State sn regard to Prsvate Land owner Fariers.
GOI and State Governients has no provssson under Act 2003 to prescrsbe profaria to Coipanses
r lscensees. Specsal Act 2003 has declared to keep Governient away froi the sector.
Governients sn order to use section 164 iust declare the condstions for utilsssng Section 164.
Heresn only a press notiscation. 2 ionths tiie and a leter, to get eieiption under Telegraph
Authorsty. Thss ss a vsolation of Electrscsty Act 2003 provsssons. In fact st ss for thss purpose that
Rules 2006 are prescrsbed. The land owners who are iostly siall and iargsnal fariers cannot
understand the siplscation of lsnes and towers on thesr land and loss of sts value. Ssnce 2003
isllsons of fariers densed coipensation under the false preteit of Telegraph Authorsty.
17. FAILUR OF DISTRICT COLL CTOR TO PROT CT FAM RS PROP RTY RIGHTS.
The Dsstrsct Collector across the country have fasled to protect the snterest of fariers. The
Collectors whsle passsng orders or sssusng proceedsngs under Telegraph Act 1885 have fasled
to assess the daiage to land due to towers and lsnes. Section 10 (d) of Act 1885 reads as
follows: “sn the eiercsse of the powers conferred by thss section, the Telegraph Authorsty –“
SHALL DO AS LITTLE DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE ”, and, when st has eiercsse those powers sn
respect of any property other than that referred to sn clause ( c), “Shall Pay Full Coipensation
To All Persons Interested For Any Daiage Sustasned By Thei” by reason of the eiercsse of
those. Ssnce 2003 the Collectors were unable to assess the consequence of constructing Hsgh
Tensson Transisssson Towers and Lsnes on a siall psece fari landn Whether the Land
owner, be st a fariers or ressdential land or sndustrsal land wsll be daiaged and that the
owner wsll sustasn LOSSESS and that he should be coipensated. Thss ground realsty has
evaded the atention of Parlsaient whsle passsng that act 2003 and Adisnsstrators whsle
sipleienting the Act Provsssons, and Hsgh Courts whsle concurrsng wsth Telegraph Authorsty
(Act 1885 provsssons) Perhaps because the Fari lands are not as valuable as csty rurban
properties. The word URBAN PROPERTY vssa – vss Fariers Landsr Property was never gsven
equal siportance or preference by polscy iakers ssnce sndependence.
18. S CTION 164 – NCROACHING ON POW RS OF R GULATORY COMMISSIONS.
Due to sllegal usage of section 164 the powers conferred on central electrscsty regulatory
coiisssson (CERC) and State Regulatory Coiissssons are curtasled. Act 2003, Section 76,
confers vast powers on the Regulatory Coiissssons. The transisssson coipany has to
obtasn lscense froi Centralr State Regulatory Coiissssons The Coiissssons have provsded
rules for carrysng out works by the lscensees. The Coiissssons are gsven powers of revssson
of Collectors proceedsngs rorders. As seen above, sf the Collector’s orders are under
Telegraph Act 1885 the Coiissssons cannot revsew the orders of Collectors. Instead, Dsstrsct
Judge ss eipowered. Land owners are deprsved of revssson of Collectors orders. The fees sn
Dsstrsct Court has to be pasd for clasisng Coipensation. The Coiissssons have decsde
coipensation sn a tiie bound ianner. Whereas there ss no such tiie lsistation for Dsstrsct
Judge to award coipensation. The purpose of Specsal Act 2003 provsssons are lost due to
issuse of Section 164.
19. UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OF T L GRAPH ACT .18853.
The provsssons of Telegraph Act 1885, Vssa–a-Vss Electrscsty Act 2003 are snconssstent and not
applscable sn Deiocratic Indsa. They vsolate Indsan Constitutional provsssons of rule of
followsng procedure, rsght to property – now declared as huian rsght -, deprsvation of
property rsght and densal of substantive and sustentative rsght to property and other statues
as dsrected by Supreie Court of Indsa.
The 19th century Telegraph Act 1885 has followsng sllegalstiesr srregularsties sn coiparsson to
Act 2003. (s) The lscenses are centralszed under Msnsstry of Telegraph, Governient of Indsa,
whsch ss not functional. Where as sn Act 2003 lscenssng ss decentralssed and delegated to
Coiissssons whsch are sndependent judscsal authorsties. (ss) Act 1885 has no rules, whereas
Act 2003 has Rules wsth revssson provsssons. (sss) No procedure to be followed for establsshsng
telegraph lsnesrpoles, where as Towers and lsnes have specssc rules and condstionalsty. (sv)
Act 1885 has no provssson to land owners to protestr obstruct, where as Act 2003 has provsded
rsghts to land owners to refuse consent and provssson for revssson (v) In Telegraph, Act 1885
there ss no clarsty on authorsty to si coipensation . In Act 2003, Coipany can, by stself,
negotiate wsth land owner or seek Collectors sntervention. (vs) Act 1885 has no clarsty as who
and when and on what basss the coipensation ss sied for daiages, where as Act 2003 has
aiple provsssons for st. (vss) Act 1885 do not desne daiage to property, eicept coipensate
for loss of crops and Trees. The fact that Telegraph poles and lsnes are not dangerous to
huians or ansials or envsronient ss one of fact and needs no siagsnation. Where as
Electrscsty Towers and lsnes are hsghly dangerous to huians, Ansials and also to trees. It ss for
thss reason that condstionalsty are siposed by Governients on construction of towers and
lsnes over past 100 years. Shocksngly Approprsate Governients Have Equated Telephone
Polesr Lsnes Wsth That of Electrscsty Towers And Conductors, to Make Mockery of Rsght to
Property of Fariers (vsss) Act 1885 has no provssson for revssson and no scope for appeal.(si)
The 1885 Act ss out dated and ss srrelevant of the people of Indsa sn 21 st century . By adopting
Act 1885 provsssons GOI and State Governients has sabotaged the Act 2003 objectives. The
Telegraph Act 1885, has to be snvalsdated by the Honourable Hsgh Court for the reasons stated
above.
20. DISCRIMINATION OF S CTION 164. GOV RNM NTS AND CITIZ NS.
Approprsate Governients, GOI and States have Dsscrsisnated In Ussng Section 164 Between
Cstizens & Governient Institutions:-The Msnsstry of Power, GOI and State Governients,
issused and abused Section 164. The provssson of Telegraph Act 1885, Section 10 to 19 are
snvoked sn regard Works of Lscense Rules 2006 applscable to prsvate land owners and prsvate
land owners rbusldsngs. Rules 3 (1)(a) 3(1)(b) 3(2) and 3 (3) are applscable to only Cstizens –
(Fariers) –Prsvate Land Owners. Act 1885, Section 10 to 19 are not applscable to Works of
lscensee Rules 4 (1 to 7) 5, 6(1 to 7) 7 (1 to 7) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14, where sn Governients
snstitutions Raslways – Roads – Canals – Local Bodses etc. A readsng of Act 2003, (Part VIII )
Section 67 works of lscensees “WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY LICENSEES “has not iade any
dsscrsisnation between RaslwayrRoadsr ForestrWater ways and prsvate Land holders (CITIZENS
). However ussng Act 2003 Governients have dsscrsisnated between Property of Cstizens And
Governient Properties. Thss ss sllegal and unconstitutional. Hence Section 164 has to be
snvalsdated.
21. VIOLATION OF ACT 200 PROVISIONS BY TRANSMISSION COMPANI S.
Transisssson of Electrscsty ss a bussness. It ss done by coipanses sncludsng Governient
Coipanses who are regsstered under Coipanses Act. They get loans froi snancsal snstitution
sncludsng World Bank. Shares are iobslszed froi prsvate sndsvsduals and are traded sn stock
iarkets. PGCIL and State Transisssson coipanses declare prosts, pay dsvsdends, and pay
sncoie tai. Ssnce sndependent deiand for power was sncreassng due to sndustrsalszation,
Agrsculture, houssng and other purposes, Electrscsty Boards were establsshed sn 1960 to
siprove production and dsstrsbution. However the Boards under Governients were unable to
ieet the sncreassng deiand. Afer lsberalszation sn 1990’s Governient of Indsa enacted
Electrscsty Act 2003 to ieet the growsng needs of the country. Objectives and specsal features
of the Act 2003 was detasled sn above paras. Prsvate snvestients were encouraged, and
sndependent regulatory coiisssson were establsshed as arbstrator and regulator coipanses.
But Governients continued controls over Electrscsty coipanses by avosdsng to follow Rules
2006 thereby avosdsng to follow procedure and payient and coipensation.
22. D LIB RAT PLAN TO D NY PAYM NT OF COMP NSATION TO FARM RS.
An area, which was posing a challenge to Ministry of Power and State energy
Departments ofcers was that of transmission lines. The lines and towers are hige and
will damage the lands inderneath permanently. the act 200 has provided giidelines for
resolving the problems of getng consent of land owners and fxing compensaton.
aboit 86 % of land owners are small and marginal farmers. (Annexire- 10) . A tower or
line passing over the farm land redices the valie sibstantally and permanently. Afer
1990”s large nuiber of fari lands value has apprecsably siproved due to snfrastructure,
sndustry, houssng, urbanszation. Heresn afer enactient of act 2003, daiagsng land and
payient of coipensation ss seen as a snancsal lsabslsty by transisssson coipanses.
The siart polscy iakers of Msnsstry of Power, GOI and State ofcsals, who are part
adisnsstrative servsces, worksng sn Transisssson coipanses as Chsef Eiecutives itliied
obscire secton 164– to exercise of powers of telegraph aithority “In certain cases “
and Conveniently issied gaietes empowering PGCIL and all State Transmission
Companies with Powers inder Telegraph Aithority. Section 164 “In Certasn Cases” Is
Indscative Of Rare-And- Eiceptional Csrcuistances. But the Power Msnsstry ofcsals sn GOI
and Energy Departient States have convensently enabled PGCIL and State Transisssson
Coipanses to avosd Rules 2006r2007 and the condstion there of. Telegraph Act 1885 used
as eicuse to cheat isllsons of gullsble land ownerr fariers of coipensation. It ss sllegal
and unconstitutional to gsve powers under Telegraph Act 1885 eipowersng and
exemptng Government Companies to enter into Only Private/ Citiens Lands /
Propertes wsthout followsng Rules 2006 but not Governient properties.
Msnsstry of Power, GOI enabled Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Ltd. (PGCIL)on 24-12-
2003 (wsthsn 7 ionths of passsng of act 2003, dated 26th iay 2003) was gsven Telegraph
Authorsty vsde, Gazete Eitraordsnary No.1148 dated 24th Deceiber 2003. Under
Telegraph Act 1885, section. 10, to place Transisssson Towers and Lsnes wsthout consent
of land owners or payient of daiage to fariers. For 15 years PGCIL ss dosng works under
Act 1885 provsssons, so as to avosd Rules 2006.
2 . PROFIT MAKING TRANSMISSION COMPANI S AND TH IR ILL GAL ACTIVITI S.
Dursng 2013 – 14 to 2017-18 ( 5 years) Power Grsd has constructed 48,390 K. M. Lsnes. It
has utilssed 2,49,208 Hectors (Acers 6,15,792) afecting over 1 isllsons fariers rland
owners. Dursng that 5 Years persod, PGCIL declared prost of Rs. 31,184.2 Crores. It has
pasd dsvsdend of Rs. 7,851.36 Crores. It has iade provssson for Tai (Mat) and dsvsdend Tai
of Rs. 8,337.29 and 1,531.08 Crores (Annexire -11). But though the PGCIL, sn st report of
2017-18, dsdn’t iention (Annexire- 12) the coipensation pasd to Land ownerr fariers
for daiagsng of lands under Towers and Lsnes. Coipensation to fariers estiiated @ Rs.
10,00,000r- (Ten Lakhs) per Hectare the ss Rs. 24,679.90 Crores. The Power Grsd has
delsberately oisted to show the coipensation entitled by fariers.
Provsssons of section 164, Vsolates Rsght to Property, Article 300 A, of INDIAN Constitution.
It ss of coiion knowledge that the lands under towers and lsnes wsll get daiaged rForgo
value (DIMINUTION) due to electroiagnetic efects and other reasons. Electrscsty Act 1910
whsch prohsbsts construction all perianent structures underneath towers and lsnes. Even
gardens or plantations whsch grow hsgher than 10 feet are prohsbsted. Both the Act 2003
and Act 1885 have iade st oblsgatory to cause as lstle daiage as posssble and PAY FULL
COMPENSETION. The towers and lsnes by PGCIL and other have caused daiage to isllsons
of land owner fariers. The coipanses iust pay coipensation starting froi the day of
construction to all fariers.
Further the notices sssued by PGCIL and other transisssson coipanses under Telegraph
Act 1885 are vsolation of Rules 2006. Such notices are ss sllegal and issleadsng. Ssnce
passsng of Act 2003 and even afer fraisng of Rules 2006, PGCIL, a LICENSEE UNDER
Electrscsty ACT 2003, section 12, has been sssusng notices for all projects only under
Telegraph Act 1885. The contents of notices are as follows :-
“Power Grsd corporation of Indsa Ltd. (A Governient of Indsa Enterprsse)-----(address ),
Notice Under Indsan Telegraph ACT 1885 To,----Dated -----. Dear Ssr r Madai sn eiercsse
of powers vested wsth Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa ltd.( a Governient of Indsa
enterprsse, isnsstry of energy , departient of power,) .Under Part III of the INDIAN
TELEGRAPH ACT 1885, section 10 to 19 read wsth section 68 & 164 of Electrscsty Act 2003,
as aiended up to date, notice ss hereby gsven that 400 kv-----------lsne wsll go through your
Property Noted Under. Whsle due care wsll be taken to isnsisze the Daiage to standsng
crops and trees , certasn isnsiui unavosdable daiage ss lskely to take place dursng
construction r erection of the aforesasd Lsne. The trees so felled wsll be handed over to you
.The coipensation for the yseld of the trees so felled and crops daiaged wsll be pasd to
you as assessed by the Revenue Departient or any other coipetent Authorsty as iay be
decsded by the Revenue Departient.
The notices sssued by PGCIL and others accept the fact that st recognszes that LAND ss a
PROPERTY and that the LINES wsll cause daiage to the property ‘ ----line will go throigh
yoir property noted inder. While die care will taken to minimiie the damage to the
standing trees and crops, certain minimim inavoidable damage is likely to take place
diring constricton of the afore said line. Herein PGCIL accepts the fact that damage will
be caised. Bit PGCIL, a Company doing works in private land cannot by itself decide
“The xtent of Damage to Property nor It Can Decide the Compensaton”. Under Rules
2006 provsssons are iade for sisng and assesssng daiage and sisng coipensation under
Rules 2006, wheresn Collectors and Coiissssons are eipowered to setles coipensation
sssues.
PGCIL cannot sssue Notices under Act 1885. PGCIL ss lscensee under Act 2003 and provsded
wsth Rules 2006. The notice iust contasn provsssons of Act 2003, Rules 3.(1)(a ) seeksng
Consent of Land owner. It has to have detasls of tiie for reply, Under Rules 3 (1)(b). The
Notice iust provsde the land owner detasls of daiage to hss propertyrland. The notice dsd
not gsve an ofer of coipensation for the daiage to the property rland. The notices are
contrary to the provsssons under Act 2003 Section 12 and 14 where sn only an authorszed
person ss gsven lscense for transisssson of electrscsty and he has to follow rules.
24. UNAUTHORIS D GUID LIN S BY MINISTRY OF POW R IN 20153.
The Msnsstry Power, G. O.I has constituted a coiistee dated: 9r10-04-2015, under
Specsal Secretary to analyses the sssues related to Rsght of Way for laysng of transisssson
lsnes across the country and to suggest a unsfori iethodology for payient of
coipensation on thss count. The coiistees have provsded gusdelsnes on area daiaged
and sied coipensation of 85 % land value under Towers and 15% under lsnes (Rsght of
Way). The Report, Dt.15-10-2015 ss sent to Chsef secretarses of State, CMDs of State Power
Utilsties. Incsdentally the Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa ss ieiber of the Coiistee, but
as per ACTS 2013-15 they have to follow the rules.
The report by the coiistee Ref. 3r7r2015- Trans – Msnsstry of Power., GOI,Dated.15 th
October 2015 gsvsng gusdelsnes to Transisssson Lscensees /Companies/ is illegal and
contrary to the provisions of Act 200 . Thss specsal Act 2003 as detasled sn the objectives
and Reasons ss Intended to Keep Governient Away Froi all the Activsties of Power
Sector, eicept polscses. The fact that afer 1 years of passing of Act 200 and 9 years of
making Riles 2006 Ministry of Power, GOI consttited a commitee on 09/10 -04-20153 is
indicatve of deliberate atempt by Ministry of Power, GOI, and State Governments, of
their contnied control and interfering in the issies of Power Sector. The sssue of
Gazete sn –2003 gsvsng eieiption to PGCIL to evade Rules 2006 and conferrsng Telegraph
Authorsty (Under Act 1885) ss sndscative of Governients snterference sn the Power sector
afasrs by ofcsals. Therefore constituting Coiistee, by Msnsstry of Power for sisng
coipensation ss also sllegal, contrary to the objectives of Act 2003. The authorssation
under Telegraph Authorsty sn 2003 and gsvsng gusdelsnes for coipensation sn 2015 are
sllegal , and vsolation of Rsght to property Article 300 A. Therefore needs to cancelled, but
as per ACTS 2013-15 they have to follow the rules.
253. ILL GAL AND UNAUTHORIS D PROC DINGS BY COLL CTORS SINC 200 .
Froi 2003 TO 2018, proceedsngs sisng coipensation sssued by Dsstrsct Collectors sn the
State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are unauthorszed and vsolation of Rules 2006 and
2007 are sllegal. (Annexire-1 )The Transmission companies have claimed to work inder
telegraph act 18853, secton 17( ) it is the District Jidge who are aithorised. Therefore
all the proceedings /orders issied by the Collectors from 200 tll 2018 are with oit die
aithorisaton, hence invalid. In these Circimstances the Collectors be dsrected to re-
evaluate the daiages and sssue fresh proceedsngs as per Honourable Supreie Court of
Indsa Judgient of 2007 Kerala Electrscsty Board vs Levssha and coipensation under Land
Acqussstion Act 2013. Dsrection ss gsven that each land owner property be evaluated
separately based on sts location and future developient opportunsty as dsrected by the
Supreie Court of Indsa.
As of now proceedsngs by the Collectors are sssued under Telegraph Act 1885. They wsll
deny the land owners froi slsng revssson before Regulatory Coiisssson under Rule 2006
,Rule 13 (1) and 13 (2). Therefore the Proceedsngs sssued By Collectors sn The States of
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana froi 2003 be declared as sllegal and vsolation of Works of
Lscensee Rules 2006r2007.
26. MISGUIDING HIGH COURT BY FILING ILL GAL AFFIDAVITS :-
The Andhra Pradesh High Coirt have passed Jidgments ipholding right of transmission
company to enter into private land and constrict Towers and lines withoit obtaining
consent of the landowner. What Thesr Lordshsps fasled to percesve ss land ss a property. It ss
owned by fariers, who are cstizen of Indsa. And that land ss a huian rsght. And land can be
taken only as per law, procedure and coipensation. The contention of coipanses entersng
snto prsvate land wsthout followsng procedure – authorszation- coipensation- ss agasnst
prsncspals of Natural Justice, Vsolation of Constitutional Rsghts, Act 2003, Rules 2006 and ss
Crsie under crsisnal tress pass. The works of PGCIL and other transisssson coipanses are
aiply coipensated by Regulatory Coiissssons by way of WHEELING CAHRGES. Each
coipany ss declarsng huge prosts, dsvsdends and taies. PGCIL ss not dosng any a charstable
work. The eiployees sn coipanses are not dosng free servsces. Every one ss pasd hefy salarses.
In dealsng the sssue of Telegraph Authorsty (Act . 1885) the Honourable Hsgh Court dsd not take
snto conssderation that Electrscsty Act 2003 ss a Specsal Act. Here sn Governients are kept
away froi snterfersng sn Electrscsty, Generation-Transisssson–Dsstrsbution. The Act 2003 ss
iade to curtasl favourstisi by Governient coipanses, corrosson sn functionsng of
boardsrPGCILrState transisssson Coipanses, corruption and snefcsency of State Electrscsty
Boards. Act 2003 provsdes gusdelsnes to ionstor, regulate and dsscsplsne transisssson
coipanses. Regulatory Coiisssson are also eipowered to snvestigate snto srregularsties of
coipanses under Section126 to 130 and, take dsscsplsnary action under Section 135 to 152,
sncludsng levy sne and also cancel lscensees. Under Act 2003 and Rules 2006 a specssc
procedure ss prescrsbed to be followed by every lscensee whsle constructing towers and lsnes.
Under Rule 2006 Rule 3 (2 ) the Dsstrsct Collector & Magsstrate alone ss eipowered to si
coipensationr Rent or both and gsve perisssson sn wrsting to the lscensee. The Act 2003 and
Rules 2006 have iade provssson for revssson of the Collector &Magsstrate orders under Rule 3
(4) by the Coiissssons. Further thss Specsal Act 2003 has constituted Appellate Trsbunal for
Electrscsty to deal wsth all iaters of Electrscsty Production- Transisssson and Dsstrsbution as
snal authorsty. Bit appropriate governments by ising secton 164,have restored, the
government companies, with arrogance, to violate riles and misise the aithority, so as to
deprive payment of compensaton for damages caised to millions of farmers.
PGCIL and other coipanses sled issleadsng afdavsts sn Hsgh Courts (Annexire-14) clasisng,
that they are eipowered under Telegraph Act 1885, therefore need not get prsor consent
froi the land owner. Accordsngly avosded to sssue notices under Rules 2006. Even few notices
sssued under Act 1885, are Mssleadsngly Worded as sf the land owners are entitled for only
Crop rTrees Coipensation. The Damage Under Lines & Towers Is To Individial Land
Owner/Farmers Is Not Taken Into Consideraton By The Coirts. The contenton that inder
Secton 164 vested with Telegraph Aithority, Transmission Company can enter into private
land withoit consent, is violaton of Artcle 00A. Telegraph Aithority has no provision
getng consent and no provision for compensaton assessment and payment of
Compensaton. Herein Appropriate Governments have violated provisions of Secton 164 by
illegal aithorisaton and also provisions of new LA ACT companies inder Telegraph
Aithority. Therefore the companies are actng illegally. The decision by the Honoirable High
Coirts are contrary to Act 200 and Riles 2006 /2007. The decisions are violaton of
Consttitonal Rights.
Even inder Telegraph Act 18853, land ownersr faiers whose lands are daiaged due to towers
and lsnes are elsgsble for fill Compensaton. (Act 1885 Section10 (d)). The land ownerrfariers
are kept sn dark of elsgsbslsty of coipensation for land daiaged by the coipany. The
Collectors proceedsngs are sssued only under Telegraph Act 1885. There ss no provssson Under
Act 1885, where sn the Collectors have to si daiages. It ss only sn Act 2003, Rule 3(2) Collector
ss eipowered to si coipensation. That too, If The Land Owner Refuses to gsve Consent. That
too, on the Applscation by Transisssson Coipany For Perisssson To Carry Out Works, by
dsstrsct Collectors.
Section 164 of act 2003 was issused and delsberately isssnterpreted by transisssson
lscensees. Act 2003 section 67 has iade all provsssons (part vsss) works of lscensee. Under
section 67. (1) (a) to (d) gave provssson to carry out works sn raslways and streets etc . Under
section 67 (2) allowed governient to iake rules for carrysng out works sn governient and
prsvate lands. --Act 2003 ,under section 67 (3) gave dsrections to lscensee about daiages and
coipensation as follows “ a lscensee shall , sn eiercsse of any power conferred by or under thss
section and the rules iade there under , cause as lstle daiage, detrsient , snconvensence as
iay be , and shall iake full coipensation for any daiage, detrsient or snconvensence
caused by hsi or by any one eiployed by hsi “.
Act 2003, and under 67 (4) iade provssson for- coipensation :-where any dsference or
dsspute (sncludsng aiount of coipensation under sub -section(3) under thss section ,the
iater shall be deterisned by the approprsate coiissssons. Section 67( 5) eipowered
coiisssson to sipose penalty.--Electrscsty act 2003 a, specsal act to iake power sector
efcsent by establsshsng regulatory coiissssons at central and states. Eipowered
coiissssons to grant lscenses to transisssson –generation – dsstrsbution coipanses. The
coiisssson are authorszed to si charges for transisssson and generation. Coiissssons are
gsven qusz –judscsal power to si charges, arbstration aiong lscensees r coipanses and also
cancel lscensees. Part i section 76 establsshes regulatory coiissssons of central & state
electrscsty regulatory coiisssson. It has iade provssson for appellate trsbunal for electrscsty as
snal authorsty to deal power sector sssues. Under part ivs, section 158 ss created to arbstrate sn
order to hasten setleient of sssues.
27. POW R GRID CORPORATION GIVING MISL ADING INFORMATION To WORLD BANK:-
In regard to Payient of Coipensation to daiaged property rlands of fariers under
Towers and Lsnes the Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Ltd, has obtasned huge loans by
fraudulently, provsdsng sllegally and false snforiation to World Bank and International
snance Corporation. The World Bank condstionalsty of coipulsory rehabslstation of all
afected persons of projects, convensently ss isssnterpreted and provsded false
snforiation By Power Grsd .The Power Grsd sn thesr Project No.31419 Dated. 2nd March
2012 (Annexire -153) gave following declaraton”.
(W.B. Report- 532-1) Page 5. Last Para –Typscally, Power Grsd Acqusres About 15-40 Hectors
Of Land For Sub-Stations. The coipany prefers to acqusre of non avaslabslsty of
governient land, the coipany acqusres prsvate land (resulting sn snvoluntary setleient)
and at tiies also purchases through wsllsng seller-buyer transaction (s,e wsthout sn
voluntary resetleient). HOWEVER, Power Grid Does Not Acqiire Right of way (R.O.W) ,
as it is temporarily reqiired only for Laying, Occasionally for Operatng and Maintenance
Of Transmission Lines. RoW requsred along the route alsgnient ss 27i, 35i,52, 46r52
and 64-85 i wsde strsp of land for 132kv,220kv, 500kv, 400kv,double csrcust, 765 and 800
kv dc transisssson lsnes respectively. ===add
(532-2) Heresn the question arsses ss whsch actrlaw has gsven powers to Power Grsd to
sipose usage restrsction of fariers landn If st ss under Electrscsty Act 2003 as per Rules
2006, Rule 3 (1)(a), power grsd has to get consent froi land owner. Or sf farier refuses
consent, power grsd has to get perisssson sn wrsting froi Collector Under Rule 3(2).
Assuisng that power grsd ss acting as per Telegraph Act 1885 Under Secton 10 (d) Power
grid cannot caise sibstantal damage to farmers landed property. section 10, iandates,
shall pay fill Compensaton to all persons interested for any damage sistained by them
by reason of the exercise of those powers.
(532- ) The power grid in the project report 1419 to IFC has provided false, misleading
and illegal statement. Obtaining bank loans with false informaton is a criminal act. As
per Consttitonal provisions of India and directon by Sipreme Coirt of India, Right of
Way (R o W) caises total damage to farmers lands inder.
RoW. Therefore Power Grid mist pay compensaton for the damages caised. Power
Grid has not Provided Liability for Damages In Their Books of accoints for payment of
compensaton to land damage. The liability is not shown in the annial report. All banks
are given false accoints by power grid with infated profts. This has led to Share Valie
Increase and pay more Dividend and also Higher Income Tax. This is violaton of stock
exchange regilatons.
(532-4) the arrogance of Power Grid mpowering itself with aithority to impose
Conditanalites on farmers lands which are sibstantally damaged shoild not and cannot
be allowed to happen in democratc Indian repiblic, where in rile of law stll prevails.
(532-53) “R o W, For- Telegraphsc-Lsne, Whsle ownershsp of Land Vests Wsth the Land
Owners, the Land owner forgo the Rsght to (a) busld perianent structures anywhere
wsthsn the safety area of RoW (b) plant trees tall trees or undertake plantation activsties
wsth sn RoW, eicept sf ussng short hesght trees and (c) dsvert land under tower footing
froi past use. Where the land wsthsn R.o.W ss used for agrsculture, the land owners iay
continue to cultivate the land afer T-lsne been strung. However, where the land ss used for
tree plantation (frusting or of tiiber varsety), the land owners are requsred to plant dwarf
versty or low hesght trees wsthsn R.o.W. In requsrsng R.o.W, Power Grsd adheres to the host
country requsreients of prevalent Indsan telegraph act. The act provsdes for payient of
tree loss and crop loss coipensation, whsch the coipany provsdes “.
28. GUID LIN S BY SUPR M COURT FOR FIXING COMP NSATION :-
The Sipreme Coirt of India has given giidelines Methodology to Fix Compensaton
based on Potentality. Ref:- Sipreme Coirt of India in Case No.SC Ref. No. 148- 1537 /
2000 dated 07.1.2007 Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
Para No.5: For ascertasnsng the iarket value of the land, the potentialsty of the acqusred
land should also be taken snto conssderation. Potentialsty ieans capacsty or posssbslsty for
changsng or developsng snto a state of actualsty. The qieston whether a land has
potental valie or not is primarily one of the fact depending ipon its conditon iser to
which its pit or reasonably capable of being pit and proximity to residental,
commercial or indistrial areas on insttitons. The existng amenites like, water,
electricity, possibility of their firther extension, whether near aboit town is developing
or prospects of development has to be taken into consideraton. Additonal Ref-Collector
Rasgarh vs. Hars Ssngh Thakur AIR 1979 472, Raghuvansh Narayan vs. State of UP AIR 1969,
SC 465 and Adisnsstrator General West Bengal vs. Collector Varanass AIR 1988 Sc. 943. It
has been held sn Kaushalya Devs Vs. LAO Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 Suresh Kuiar Vs. B
I Trust AIR 1980 SC 1222 That faslsng to conssder potential value of the acqusred land ss a
vsolation of prsncspal natural justice.
29. IMPORTANC OF FOLLOWING PROC DUR IN D MOCRACY. SC DIR CTIONS:-
Power Grsd and other transisssson coipanses are not following any procedire leading
to cheatng of famers by them. Importance Of Following Procedire In Democracy :
1) .SC. AIR.1987. SC 2386. Ranjst Thakur vs Unson of Indsa. (2)Unsted States. Supreie
Court 1942 (318) Unsted State 332.
“The observatons made therein are to the efect that the die observance of the
prescribed procedire is a giarantee against arbitrary exercise of power. The procediral
safe giards shoild be commensirate with the sweep of the powers. The wider the
power the greater the need for restraint in its exercise and correspondingly, more liberal
the constricton of the procediral safegiards envisaged by the statite.
“The History of Liberty” sasd Frank Further J., the learned judge, “Has Largely Been the
History of Observance Of Procediral Safe Giards ” (1942) 318 Unsted States 332.
I subist Ref :C.W.J.C. NO. 6993 of 2010 Judgient on 9th February 2011 Patna Hsgh Court.
Justice Navaneeths Prasad Ssngh- Between Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Vs. Rai
Naresh Ssngh.
( Judgient. Para 13): - We are isndful of the vstal publsc snterest snvolved sn the present
iater perhaps wsth all Indsa raisscations. In vsew of the doctrsne of siisnent doiasn
read wsth rule 3 of the rules the applscant has the power to snstall transisssson towers on
the lands of respondent nuibers 1 & 2 sn publsc snterest, afer followsng the procedure
prescrsbed and payient. We are sn thss connection reisnded of judgient of the Supreie
Court sn the case of Ranjst Thakur Vs Unson of Indsa, AIR 1987 23876 wheresn the
siportance of followsng prescrsbed procedure has been eiphasszed. The observance
iade theresn are to the efect that due observance of the prescrsbed procedure ss
guarantee agasnst arbstrary eiercsse and correspondsngly iore lsberal the construction of
the procedural safeguard envssaged by the statute”. Thss cursously evolved ruled
adisnsstrative law ss now srily establsshed and sf, I iay add, rsghtly so he that take the
procedural slot. The hsstory of lsberty judge has largely besng the hsstory of observance of
procedural safeguards (1992) 318 US 332. We are afraid the non-compliance of the
mandate of S-1 0 is an infrmity which goes to the root of the jirisdicton.
0. RIGHT TO R SIST PRIOR INTIMATION IS SS NTIAL.
(i) Gijarat High Coirt:- Right To Resist Or Obstrict Prior Intmaton Is ssental. Case
:-Gujarat Hsgh Court Case No: CsvslrSCAr1834r2011. Dated: 29.08.2013- Dslsp Ssngh
Chouhan Vs Gujarat Vajra Nsgai (Transisssson Coipany)
“Whsle eiercsssng the power as that of the Telegraph Authorsty under the Telegraph Act,
on account of the notiscation under Section 164 of the Act consent of the owner or
occupser iay not be requsred, bit some reasonable prior intmaton shoild be given to
the owner or occipier, enabling him to exercise his right to resist or obstrict, may be on
the groind that the principles of least damage is not followed or may be on the groind
that appropriate compensaton is not paid or otherwise. The moment there is resistance
or obstricton by the owner or occipier, the licensee has to stop his work, sf any, or to
wsthdraw froi the property of the owner or the occupser. Thereafer, 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, bit while grantng
permission, he may be reqiired to examine the observance of the principles of litle
damage as possible and thereafer the perisssson iay be granted.
1. DISTINCTION -B TW N 19TH C NTURY T L GRAPH ACT. 18853 AND 21ST C NTURY
lectricity Act. Ref. 200 .28.1. Gujarat Hsgh Court Csvsl.rSCAr18334r2011, 29-08-2013, Dslsp
Ssngh Chouhan vs Gujrat Ujra Nsgai.
The aforesasd aspect woild lead is to examine the diference and distncton in the mode of
exercise of the power inder Secton 67 of the Act read with the Riles of 2006 and the
exercise of power inder the Telegraph Act when it is so conferred by the Notfcaton inder
Secton 164 of the Act by the appropriate Government. The distncton can be carved oit as
inder:
If the power ss to be eiercssed under Section 67 of the Act read wsth the Rules of 2006 at the
frst instance consent of the owner or the occipier is the reqiirement for exercise of
power, whereas if the Telegraph Aithority has to exercise the power the consent of the
owner or occipier is not reqiired for exercise of power, but “wsth the clarsscation that the
owner or occupser of the property has rsght to ressst or obstruct when the work ss undertaken
by the lscensee “.
There is a thin line of distncton between getng consent of the owner or occipier and
enabling power of the owner or occipier to resist or obstrict any work. Consent would
presuppose an action afer ieeting of two isnds and arrsvsng at an unansious decssson,
whereas sn a case where the owner or the occipier has right to resist or obstrict woild
mean that one (licensee) may proceed to indertake the work by intmaton to the owner or
occipier and if there is no resistance or obstricton, the work may be started or proceeded
with intl the same is resisted or obstricted. ‘The moment their is resistance or obstricton
by the owner or occipier, the aithority of license to indertake the work woild end.
2. D V LOPM NT OF SOCI TY- 19th C NTURY & 21ST C NTURY: Case: Gujarat Hsgh Court No:
XCIVILrscar18334r2011 Dated 29-08-2013:-
The Hsgh Court has observed as follows .As per section 10(d) there are two iandatory
requsreients. (1) Telegraph Aithority shall do as litle damage as possible; and (2) to pay
fill compensaton to all persons interested for the damage sistained by them by the
reasons of the exercise of those powers. The neit aspect ss what wsll be the scope of as lstle
daiage as posssble and what wsll be the scope of full coipensation. Before we address on
the sasd aspect, st wsll not be out of place to iention that Indsan Telegraph Act caie to be
enacted sn the year 1885, iuch prsor to not only sndependence of our country, but could
rather be sasd as the law enacted sn 19th century. There are far iore developient not only sn
the rsghts of the cstizens, but also sn the oblsgation and the way of dsscharge of duty by the
authorsty and iore particularly, afer the Constitution has coie snto force sn the Country.
Further, there are far iore developient of scsence, the iethod and way of enjoyient of the
properties by the cstizens and so ss for varsous scsentisc iethod developed for laysng down
the lsnes. Telegraph lsnes are by now outdated on the date when we are to pronounce the
judgient and they are to be substituted for the electrscsty lsnes. Therefore, we need to
partcilarly Secton 164 of the Act are the laws of 21st Centiry. At the srst brush we iay say
that by the laws of 21st Century s.e. Electrscsty Act, the power so conferred by the Act of 19 th
Century are continued. If the Act read wsth the Rules 2006 are conssdered, st does requsre the
consent of the owner and also sn absence of the consent, sf the Polsce Coiissssoner or
Magsstrate ss to grant perisssson ssiultaneous assessient of the coipensation and the
payient thereof subject to revision power by appropriate Commission, whereas the
iechanssi so provsded under the Telegraph ACT ss dsferent, but whsle snterpreting the
provsssons of the Telegraph Act for laysng down of the lsnes of electrscsty we need to keep in
mind the rights and obligatons so prevailing in 21st Centiry and it cannot be as that of 19th
Centiry when the positon of the Cointry, incliding the development in the society and the
science was far behind.
. A T L GRAPH AUTHORITY CANNOT B CONF RR D WITH POW RS UND R L CTRICITY
ACT. 1970:11-09-1966- SC.AIR.1970 SC 491 (1970) SCC 8531 -
S.C. has iade the followsng observation .The State Governient conferred upon the
Petitioner powers for placsng electrsc supply lsnes applsances and apparatus for the
transisssson and dsstrsbution of the energy by st wsthsn the area of sts supply whsch the
telegraph authorsty possesses under Section 10 to 18 and 19A of the Indsan Telegraph Act
wsth respect to placsng of telegraph lsnes and posts Section 51 ierely eipowers the State
Governient to confer on the lscensee certasn powers whsch can be eiercssed by a
telegraph authorsty under the Indsan Telegraph Act. It does not by reference incorporate
in to the Indian lectricity Act all the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act . Merely
becaise some of the powers conferred inder the Indian Telegraph Act on the telegraph
aithority coild be conferred on a licensee inder the Indian Telegraph Act, it does not
follow that all the rights and liabilites of a licensee inder the Indian lectricity Act are
governed by the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act.
4. APPLICABILITY OF TH PROVISIONS OF TH RIGHT TO FAIR COMP NSATION AND
TRANSPAR NCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, R HABILITATION AND R S TTL M NT ACT, 201 .
The changes sn the provsssons of the New Land Acqussstion Act was sntended to facslstate fariers
to get beter coipensation, rehabslstation and resetleient benests sn lseu of land besng
coipulsorsly acqusred by the approprsate Governient and to reiove the procedural dsfculties
sn the acqussstion of lands requsred for siportant national projects. In vsew of the urgency, these
aiendients were brought about by an Ordsnance on 31.12.2014. Subsequently on 10.3.2015
Lok Sabha passed the Aiendient Bsll to replace thss Ordsnance. The Aiendient Bsll passed by
the Lok Sabha sncludes soie further changes to the Ordsnance whsch are as follows:
Compensaton as per Schedile extended to 1 Acts:
Coipensation sn accordance wsth the Fsrst Schedule and rehabslstation and resetleient specssed
sn the Second and Thsrd Schedules of the Act are eitended to the thsrteen Acts ientioned sn the
Fourth Schedule of the New Land Acqussstion Act naiely-
(1) to (11) iii
(12) The Electrscsty
Act, 2003;
(13) iii
Nesther of the respondents could proceed blsnd folded sn all these iaters.
The Act of 2003 and iore particularly Section 164 of the Act are laws of 21st Century. If the Act
of 21st century provsdsng the iethod and iechanssi under Section 67 of the Act read wsth the
Rules of 2006 are conssdered, st does requsre the consent of the owner and also sn absence of
consent, sf the Polsce Coiissssoner or the Magsstrate ss to grant perisssson ssiultaneous
assessient of the coipensation and the payient thereof subject to provsssonal power by
approprsate Coiisssson, whereas the iechanssi so provsded under the Telegraph Act ss
dsferent, but whsle snterpreting the provsssons of the Telegraph Act for eiercsse of the power by
any person as that of the Telegraph act for laysng down of the lsnes of electrscsty st needs to be
kept sn isnd the rsghts and oblsgations so prevaslsng sn 21st Century and st cannot be as that of
19th Century when the posstion of the country, sncludsng the developient sn the socsety and the
scsence was far behsnd.
It ought to have been conssdered that, sn vsew of the Harionszed Lsst of Infrastructure sub-
sectors notised on 27 March, 2012 by Departient of Econoisc Afasrs (Infrastructure Section),
Msnsstry of Fsnance, Govt. of Indsa, provsssons of Rsght to Fasr Coipensation Act has been iade
applscable to Transisssson works. (Annexire - 16) .
53. PRAY R. (Petton to the High Coirt )
s) It ss prayed that all land owner fariers and others sn The States of -------- be coipensated
by the Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Ltd and --------State Transisssson coipany and
other Transisssson coipanses for sllegal and unauthorssed construction of Hsgh Tensson
Transisssson Towers and Lsnes sn thesr lands and consequent daiage to thesr property,
losses for crops and equspient froi the date of passsng of Electrscsty Act 2003.
ss) It ss prayed that the coipensation be awarded wsth snterest and solarsui.
sss) It ss prayed that the coipensation to be sied as per schedule eitended to Land
Acqussstion Act 2013.
sv) It ss prayed as of now the Honourable Hsgh Court to gsve dsrections to all the Chsef
Secretarses, and Power secretarses, all Dsstrsct Collectors and Transisssson Coipanses sn
the states of -----------to follow Rules 2006 sssued by Msnsstry of Power GOI and Rules
sssued state Governient.
v) It ss prayed that the Honourable Hsgh Court to sssue dsrections to the Dsrector General of
Polsce sn the State so as to gsve dsrections to Polsce not to support sllegal activsties of the
transisssson coipanses.
vs) It ss prayed that the Honourable Hsgh Court sssue dsrections to the concerned
Governients to cancel section 164 of Act 2003, as Section 164 vsolates property rsghtn
Huian rsght of Indsan cstizens and also ss unconstitutional and vsolates Act 2003 provsssons
of varsous Sections as stated the petition.
vss) It ss prayed that the Honourable Hsgh Court to pass such other orders as deei st and
proper.
Place:------
Date: --------- Petitioner
NOT :- 1. Any farier afected by transisssson coipanses for daiage to thesr propertyr
Agrsculture land iay use the above detasls by iaksng necessary correction.
2. Please versfy the Court Judgients before ussng thei.
3. I wsll apprecsate to recesve acknowledgsng ussng the detasls. E-iasl. [email protected]