news details |
|
|
| Aerial right for transmission lines remains with the State: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 14: Reaffirming the legal distinction between the right to compensation for physical acquisition of land and the non-compensable nature of aerial usage for transmission infrastructure the Justice Sindhu Sharma High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that individual landowners cannot assert any legal, fundamental, or constitutional rights over aerial space traversed by high-tension transmission lines.
Justice Sindhu Sharma, while dismissing a writ petition filed by a Uri-based resident, reiterated that the aerial right of way in respect of transmission lines continues to vest with the State and does not entitle landowners to compensation merely because such lines pass over their properties.
The court made these observations in a writ petition filed by one Farooq Ahmad Lodhi, who claimed ownership of a plot in Tehsil Uri, where he had constructed a residential house. Lodhi alleged that the respondents had erected a tower and laid a high-tension transmission line over the roof of his house, rendering it uninhabitable. He had earlier approached the District Judge, Baramulla, seeking a restraining order but later withdrew the suit based on assurances from the respondents that he would be compensated.
When no compensation was forthcoming despite several representations and a plea to the District Legal Services Authority, Lodhi invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, demanding Rs. 20 lakh as compensation for his house, an additional Rs. 5 lakh for mental distress, and 12% interest for alleged wrongful withholding of compensation since 1996.
He further contended that other similarly situated individuals had received compensation for similar construction activities, pointing to RTI documents indicating selective payouts. The respondents denied causing any damage to the petitioner's property and clarified that the alleged assurances were conditional, dependent on an established entitlement to compensation.
Justice Sindhu Sharma, after examining the rival claims and the legal position, held that the petitioner's demand for compensation was misplaced. The Court placed strong reliance on the Division Bench ruling in Ranvijay Chand and another v. State of J&K and others, which explicitly held that landowners do not possess any enforceable rights legal, fundamental, or constitutional against transmission lines passing over their land. The aerial right of way remains with the State, and no compensation is payable for it, the bench maintained.
Court observed"...with regard to the aerial right of way, it continues to be with the State and the individual owners cannot claim compensation in respect thereof… the appellants/petitioners cannot assert any right legal, fundamental or constitutional, violated by the respondents in doing an act within the purview of its powers recognized by the statute."
The Court further clarified that the transmission lines were laid strictly in accordance with the approved alignment and feasibility report under a sanctioned scheme, thereby rendering the petitioner's grievance legally untenable.
Addressing the factual disputes raised by the petitioner, particularly the alleged damage to his house and mental distress, the Court emphasized that such issues require evidence and adjudication, which cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings. In support, the Court cited its earlier ruling in Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of J&K & others, where it had held that disputed questions of fact fall outside the scope of writ jurisdiction.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
