Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS CENTURY TEXTILES & INDUSTRIES LIMITED...
2016 0 Supreme(SC) 1033 : Under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Appropriate Government has conferred powers of the Telegraph Authority on Power Grid, making it a deemed licensee and empowering it to lay transmission lines over or across leasehold land. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, specifically Sections 10, 15, and 16, grant the Telegraph Authority (now Power Grid) the right to place and maintain transmission lines over immovable property, including leasehold land, without requiring prior notice to the landowner, provided the purpose is for public utility transmission. Compensation is only required if damage is caused, and the authority must do as little damage as possible. In cases of obstruction, the District Magistrate may order the authority to proceed, and resistance is an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the power to erect towers and lay lines is essential for national development, and the legislature has not permitted impediments. Therefore, no notice or compensation is required for the mere exercise of such statutory powers, and the absence of an alternative route does not constitute a violation of natural justice, as the public interest in electrification overrides private objections.Checking relevance for Century Rayon Limited VS IVP Limited...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1303 : The court held that the appellant (MSEDC) had already obtained necessary permission from the District Magistrate under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandates payment of full compensation to affected persons after ensuring minimum loss. The court emphasized that the District Magistrate''''s order dated 28th August 2018 granted permission for erecting transmission towers and setting up the line, subject to compensation, and this order was not set aside. The court further noted that the appellant had initiated proceedings before the licensing authority and had already constructed transmission towers on the first respondent’s land, indicating actual use of the land. The court concluded that the balance of convenience did not justify an interim injunction, especially given that 80% of the work was complete and the project was in the larger public interest. The court also referenced Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which allows the appropriate government to confer powers under the Telegraph Act for transmission lines, and affirmed that the statutory process had been followed. Therefore, there was no violation of natural justice or Section 164 of the Electricity Act, as the required notice and compensation procedures were in place, and an alternative route was not necessary because the approved route had already been legally sanctioned by the District Magistrate.Checking relevance for M. D. , M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1002 : The court held that the appellant-company was not entitled to compensation for the use of its lands or damage caused by the transmission line, as the company purchased the land after the route alignment had been marked and survey work completed, and the project had advanced to a stage where realignment was not techno-economically feasible. The court also noted that the company''''s managing director, being a local man, could not have been unaware of the ongoing survey and project, thus no notice was required. The court did not find a violation of natural justice or Section 164 of the Electricity Act, as the project was authorized under Section 164 and the company had constructive knowledge of the project through public consultations and visible survey activities. The court further ruled that an alternative route was not feasible at the advanced stage of implementation.Checking relevance for M. D. , Ramakrishna Poultry P. Ltd. VS R. Chellappan...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1047 : The documents confirm that the Power Grid Corporation was authorized under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, to exercise powers of the Telegraph Authority, including for transmission lines. The project had undergone public consultation, survey, and route marking before the poultry farm was established. The appellant (poultry farm owner) purchased land after the route was marked, and the Corporation rejected claims for compensation and realignment on grounds of techno-economic infeasibility at an advanced stage of implementation. The Corporation had already disposed of the appellant’s representation on 7th May, 2005, stating no poultry farm existed at the time of survey. The court directed the Corporation to increase the height of the transmission line from 52 meters to 56 meters and ensure a minimum clearance of 40 feet between the lowest point of the cable sag and the top of the poultry shed. The appellant was also entitled to compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. This indicates that while no alternative route was provided and no prior notice to the appellant was explicitly mentioned, the legal framework allowed for compensation and technical adjustments, addressing concerns of natural justice through remedial measures rather than project reversal.Checking relevance for Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Now Known As Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. ) VS Vinod And Ors. Etc. ...
Checking relevance for Chaudhari Karshanbhai Kuberbhai VS Collector/District Magistrate Patan...
2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 482 : Under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the State Government can authorize a transmission company to lay electric lines on private land without acquiring the land or obtaining the owner''''s consent. The company is not required to give prior notice to individual landowners or provide an alternative route. The landowner''''s right is limited to claiming compensation for any damage caused, not to obstruct the project. The principles of natural justice do not require individual notice or consent when the appropriate government has issued an order under Section 164, as the statutory framework already provides for compensation and the public interest in electricity supply outweighs private objections. The court upheld that no violation of natural justice occurred when the District Magistrate''''s order was followed, as the process provided adequate opportunity for hearing and objections were addressed.
