Land owner's nod not needed for projects of public interest: HC
The bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad observed that while Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (CSPTCL) is required to inform the petitioner before entering his land, prior consent is not mandated by Electricity Act, 2003, or Telegraph Act, 1885. It said CSPTCL would not claim ownership of the land where the tower is situated.
Justice Prasad ordered CSPTCL and other respondents to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner, a 94-year-old farmer.
He owns over 8.7 acres of farmland in Korbi village in Baloda tehsil of Janjgir-Champa district. He alleged that CSPTCL had dug 16 large pits and begun construction of transmission towers on his land without notice, consent, or compliance with mandatory conditions of the approval order dated March 11, 2024, issued by state govt.
The Petitioner's Side
The petitioner sought a court direction to immediately stop the construction work, arguing that the permission granted by Chhattisgarh govt had become void due to non-compliance with its conditions by CSPTCL.
He also sought restoration of his land to its original condition, removal of erected structures, and exemplary damages for mental harassment.
The petitioner submitted that over 4.8 acres (55.7%) of his land had been "illegally encroached upon and disturbed" as 16 pits were dug initially, followed by eight more on March 8, 2025, despite statutory requirements mandating prior identification of affected land in the landowner's presence, payment of compensation, and formal permission from the competent authority upon objection.
The petitioner had raised objections through a legal notice dated Dec 31, 2024, which he said were disregarded by the authorities.
He alleged that 'arbitrary compensation notices' were issued without site inspection or his presence, and no compensation was provided for Khasra Nos. 730/5 and 658/8.
The State's Side
Counsel for the respondents argued that the claim of sanction order being cancelled due to non-compliance was baseless.
They said compensation had been duly calculated and offered to the petitioner on June 24, 2024, and Jan 22, 2025, but he refused to accept it. They emphasised that under the law, consent from landowner is not a requisite for erecting transmission lines, as it is a project of national importance.
The respondents' counsel cited a previous HC order, which, in similar circumstances and for the same project, granted landowners liberty to raise grievances before appropriate forums.
They also highlighted a govt notification of Dec 13, 2006, which authorises CSPTCL officers to act as 'telegraph authority' for laying electricity transmission lines.
Court Cites SC Rulings
In its order, HC referenced Supreme Court rulings, which underscore the necessity of unobstructed access for laying electricity transmission lines in larger public interest for national development. The court noted that Chhattisgarh serves as a power hub, and electricity generation and supply from the state are of paramount importance. The bench asked the petitioner not to obstruct construction of electricity transmission towers, and directed authorities to disburse the compensation within 60 days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
42 minutes ago
- News18
Mere Act Of Sending Messages With Profanity Is Not Stalking, Says Karnataka High Court
The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a UPSC aspirant from UP, who had sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by a co-aspirant The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the mere act of sending abusive or foul messages to a woman does not, by itself, amount to the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a 30-year-old UPSC aspirant from Uttar Pradesh, who had sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by a co-aspirant he had met during coaching classes in Delhi. The man and the woman first came in contact in January 2022. Their initial academic interaction eventually developed into a personal relationship, with the man claiming that the two got married on November 10, 2023. The woman, however, later alleged that she was coerced into the marriage and filed a separate FIR in Prayagraj, accusing the man and his family of forcing her to consent at the registrar's office. The Allahabad High Court has stayed the proceedings in that case. Meanwhile, the relationship between the two deteriorated, leading to the current case registered in Bengaluru, where the woman accused the man of recording intimate videos on the false promise of marriage and using them to harass and threaten her. She filed a complaint at Chandra Layout Police Station in Bengaluru, and the case was registered under various sections of the IPC, the Information Technology Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Among the offences included in the chargesheet was Section 354D (stalking), which the man sought to contest. Therefore, the court held that in the present case, isolated acts of abuse or sending offensive messages could not alone sustain a stalking charge. Further, it noted that a few of the offences were loosely laid against the man and a few were appropriately. Therefore, while the court refused to quash the entire proceedings, citing sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial on other charges, including voyeurism (Section 354C), criminal intimidation (Section 506), insult to modesty (Section 509), and violation of privacy under Section 66E of the IT Act and also allowed the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act to remain, it quashed the case only in respect of offence alleged under Section 354D of the IPC. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka HC calls on state govt to share stampede report with KSCA, RCB, and DNA entertainment
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to provide a copy of the status report on the June 4 stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium, submitted by it in sealed cover, to the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), and DNA Entertainment Networks. The stampede occurred outside the Bengaluru Chinnaswamy Stadium while RCB was celebrating its maiden IPL title victory inside(AFP) The court rejected the state's justification for withholding the report, noting that the Supreme Court permits sealed cover confidentiality only in matters involving national security, public interest, or privacy rights—criteria that do not apply in this case. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi made these observations on Monday while deciding whether parties involved in the suo motu public interest litigation on the stampede should be given access to the report. The stampede occurred outside the Bengaluru Chinnaswamy Stadium while RCB was celebrating its maiden IPL title victory inside. Responding to the state government's argument that sharing the report could influence the ongoing judicial commission and magisterial inquiry, the bench called the concern unfounded and lacking in public interest justification. It emphasised that retired judges and senior All-India Service officers heading the inquiries are not likely to be swayed by the contents of the status report. The court reiterated that the suo motu proceedings were initiated to determine the cause of the stampede, assess accountability, and suggest preventive measures for the future. Withholding the report from key parties, while expecting their cooperation, would be "unfair", the bench said. "If the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can help the court better understand the sequence of events, contributing factors, and whether the tragedy was avoidable," the judges observed.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
K'taka HC orders state to share stampede report with KSCA, RCB, and DNA
The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to provide a copy of the status report on the June 4 stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium, submitted by it in sealed cover, to the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA), Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), and DNA Entertainment Networks. The court rejected the state's justification for withholding the report, noting that the Supreme Court permits sealed cover confidentiality only in matters involving national security, public interest, or privacy rights criteria that do not apply in this case. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi made these observations on Monday while deciding whether parties involved in the suo motu public interest litigation on the stampede should be given access to the report. The stampede occurred outside the Bengaluru Chinnaswamy Stadium while RCB was celebrating its maiden IPL title victory inside. Responding to the state government's argument that sharing the report could influence the ongoing judicial commission and magisterial inquiry, the bench called the concern unfounded and lacking in public interest justification. It emphasised that retired judges and senior All-India Service officers heading the inquiries are not likely to be swayed by the contents of the status report. The court reiterated that the suo motu proceedings were initiated to determine the cause of the stampede, assess accountability, and suggest preventive measures for the future. Withholding the report from key parties, while expecting their cooperation, would be "unfair", the bench said. "If the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can help the court better understand the sequence of events, contributing factors, and whether the tragedy was avoidable," the judges observed. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
