Smt. Mamta Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7584 of 2020 ====================================================== Smt. Mamta Devi Wife of Sunil Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh Resident of Village- Amas, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Collector, Gaya. 2.

The Bihar State Tower Transmission Grid Company Gaya, through the Electrical Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, Gaya. 3.

The Assistant Engineer Department of Electricity, Gaya. 4.

The Junior Engineer Department of Electricity, Gaya. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha For the State :

Mr.Lalit Kishore ( AG) For the BSPTCL :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-02-2024

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The present writ application has been filed for directing the respondent-Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited, to pay compensation to the petitioner for installing overhead transmission line of 220 KV on the land of the petitioner, bearing Khata No. 42, Plot No. 52, measuring 05 decimals, situated at village Masipura I.A.S. Colony, Bodh Gaya.

3. Learned Counsel for the Bihar State Power Transmission Company Limited, referring to paragraphs 26 and 27 of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. Century Textiles

Patna High Court CWJC No.7584 of 2020(3) dt.15-02-2024 2/2 and Industries Limited and Others, reported in 2017

(2) PLJR 152 (SC), submits that as per the guidelines of the Central Government, dated 15th October, 2015, the State Government has come out with a policy that compensation for crop to the land owners can only be granted and no compensation for land will be granted to the land owners for installing the transmission line above their land. He further submits that the petitioner may file a suit as per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in the case of Century Textiles and Industries Limited (supra). He next submits that the respondent is ready to pay the compensation of the crop, but the petitioner is not accepting that.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the nature of dispute, this writ application is disposed with the consent of the parties with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of suit, as provided in the decision of Century Textiles and Industries Limited (supra).

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √