CWP/1154/2004 on 28 December 2012

1. Union of India through Secretary (Power) to the Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2. Superintending Engineer, Beas Project Bhiwani, Haryana

3. Executive Engineer, O&M Division, BBMB Kurukhestra, Haryana.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer 400 KVT/L Sub Division, BBMB Slapper, District Mandi HP

5. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of HP Shimla

6. Beas Construction Board through its General Manager, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Respondents

Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ________________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 6: None.

For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. N.K. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 5: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr.R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General. _____________________________________________________________

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

Dev Darshan Sud, J.(oral)

The petitioner seeks a direction for acquisition of land belonging to him in Khewat No. 19/18, Khatauni No. 23, Khasra No. 115/2 measuring 0-5 bighas and the house inclusive of the land standing in Khasra No. 115/1 Khewat No. 19/18 Khatauni No. 23 land measuring 0-6 bighas situated in village Talsari, Pargana Rattanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur HP and to pay compensation to him in accordance with law. The case of the petitioner is that his land comprised in Khasra No. 115 measuring 8.15 bighas situated in village Talsari, P.O. Kallar, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur was taken into possession by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), Slappar. A tower has been erected on this land and high tension electric wires were passing over his house resulting in high induction of electricity. This tower was erected for the installation of Dehar-Panipat H.J. Line. The petitioner relies upon the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector stating that the induction is unduly high. Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also issued to the respondents calling upon them for appropriate action but of no avail. The petitioner also relies upon the judgment in civil suit (Annexure P-5) instituted by him for mandatory injunction that the defendants be directed to the compensation to the petitioner for the land comprised in Khasra No. 115/2. In that suit, the learned trial Court settled ten issues. The first being as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for the compensation of the suit land and second for the relief of mandatory injunction. The suit was decided against the plaintiff. The appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court was also dismissed. The case of the petitioner is that the relief was declined to him in the suit on the ground that he had not furnished the market value of the suit land nor court fee etc.

2. In reply, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit that at the time when the tower was erected on Khasra No. 115/2 measuring 5 biswas, the land was in possession of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The house of the petitioner is not damaged in any manner by laying the transmission line. The State also resists the writ petition and submits that the house of the petitioner is safe and there is no danger. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court had observed that five biswas of land which were allotted to the petitioner by way of ‘Nautor” were stated to be under the tower raised by the respondents. By order dated 13th April, 2012 a direction was issued by this Court that the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur shall depute a revenue officer to visit the spot with prior notice to the petitioner and submit his report.

3. In affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, it was stated that in compliance to this order, the Tehsildar, Sadar Bilaspur was deputed to examine the spot with prior notice to the petitioner and to examine the feasibility of allotting 11 biswas of land adjacent to the land of the petitioner. In his detailed report, the Deputy Commissioner observed that Khasra No. 115, measuring 8 bighas was sanctioned as “Nautor” to the petitioner in the year 1975 and khasra number (not legible) measuring 0-10 biswas was encroached by him, which was later on regularized under encroachment regularization policy and the land was mutated in his name vide Mutation No. 177, dated 1.11.1990. It was not possible to allot any other piece of land to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner states that vide allotment order dated 3.1.1975 the land measuring 8 bighas of land was allotted to the petitioner when he also owned 2-1 bighas of land taking the total land after allotment of 10-1 bigha, which was sufficient for his agricultural needs. The State has already regularized 10 biswas of his encroached land on 22.1.1990. In his application, he has stated that his house was damaged in 1978 due to heavy rains and the then Deputy Commissioner and revenue staff had granted him 10 biswas of land for residential purpose. This application was filed on 30.11.1978, on which date he had filed a written statement and stated that the house has already been constructed consisting of five rooms etc. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner records: “Therefore it is amply clear from the discussion made supra that government has already accommodated Sh. Chet Ram, not once but twice, taking a humanitarian view of his agricultural and residential needs. In the 1st instance he was given 8 bighas of nautor land for his agricultural needs, later his encroachment for residential purpose to the tune of 10 biswa was regularized. It is relevant to point out that the alignment of tower line in Kh. No. 115 lies only in one of the corners of the Kh. No. 115 (as is clear from the if he still feels the need, he can very well construct any building on the remaining portion of Kh.No.115.”

4. What I find from the pleadings and the record is that the petitioner has been contesting litigation in the civil court and then in this Court where he seeks damages etc. for acquisition or in the alternative for allotment of land in lieu of the acquired land. This is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere in the writ proceedings in favour of the encroacher. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

December 28th, 2012

(Dev Darshan Sud),

(ms) Judge