Barj Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.705 of 2016 ===========================================================
1. Barj Bhushan Singh Son of Late Ramdeo Singh Resident of Village - Korara Post Office Korara P.S. Paliganj, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Power Holding Company Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawar, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer (Commercial) Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna.
4. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Area (Pesu) Patna, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna.
5. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, Patna, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna.
6. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Bihar, Patna.
7. The Nodal Officer, Public Grievance Cell, South Bihar Electricity Power Distribution Company Ltd. Bihar, Patna.
8. The District Magistrate, Patna, Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Priyedarshi, Adv. Mr.Shiv Shanker Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar-1, S.C.13 Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Sr. Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-02-2017 Heard Mr. Shiv Shanker Prasad Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Electricity Company. Although the petitioner is aggrieved by the installation of the high power line which runs over his agricultural land having 11000 volt capacity but in view of the legal position settled in the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited versus Century Textiles & Industries Limited and Ors. arising from Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016 which was
Patna High Court CWJC No.705 of 2016 dt.02-02-2017 2/2 heard analogous with other matters and the liberty to the land holders as present at paragraph 26 of the judgment, there cannot be any interference with the right of the Electricity Company for such installation save and except to grant liberty to the petitioner, in case the installation has been made in his land, to seek compensation by filing an appropriate application before the District Judge concerned in terms of the liberty so granted by the Supreme Court. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.02.2017 Transmission Date NA