F.A.Q. Damages to Farmers Lands-by Transmission Towersand lines.

=====================================

By P. Chengal Reddy, Advocate & Chief Adviser, Consortim of Indian Farmers Associatons (CIFA)

For clarifcaton mail. chengal.p@gmail.com Web. www.Indianfarmers.org

===============================================

Question:1-Do the transisssson coipanses have rsght to enter snto Fariers Land for

construction of TOWERS AND DRAW LINES wsthout FARMERS (OWNERS) prsor sntiiation

and taksng of consent and payient of coipensationn

Answer:-NO. (s) Fariers land ss a PROPERTY. Under Article 300. A, PROPERTY ss a

Constitutional Rsght. Land can be taken for publsc purpose but only by followsng procedure

and payient of coipensation. (ss) In 2011 Supreie Court of Indsa has declared PROPERTY

as a HUMAN RIGHT. (sss)Under Electrscsty Act 2003 Works of Lscensee Rules 2006 are

provsded to Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa to follow procedure for constructing Towers

and Lsnes. Under Rule 3(1)(a), Power Grsd has to take consent of the land owner farier. If

the Fariers refuses to gsve consent under Rule 3 (1) (b) The Power Grsd has to approach

the Dsstrsct Collector & Magsstrate seeksng perisssson. The Collector under Rule 3 (2) ss

authorssed to gsve perisssson afer seeksng vsews froi the fariers. The Collector ss

authorssed to FIX RENT OR COMPENSETION OR BOTH, WHICH SHOULD IN HIS OPENION BE

PAID BY THE LICENSEE TO RHE OWNER”. In case the fariers ss not satissed wsth

coipensation sied by the Collector, under Rule 3 (3) the farier can be sled for revssson

before the Electrscsty Regulatory Coiisssson. The Coiisssson under Rule 13 (1) and 13

(2) can revsse the Coipensation. Further there ss provssson for appeal for sncreassng the

coipensation before the Applegate Trsbunal for Electrscsty (A T E).Electrscsty Act 2003 ss

hsghly progresssve Act so as to develop ENERGY SECTOR as growth engsne.

Q.2. How ss st, as of now (Froi 2003 to Noveiber 24th 2018) Power Grsd and other

Transisssson Coipanses are forcsbly entersng snto fariers lands and constructing Towers

and Lsnes n

Ans:- Power Grsd and State Transisssson Coipanses have adopted issleadsng, sllegal,

crsisnal and unconstitutional iethods to construct Towers and Lsnes (s) They

CIRCUMVENTED Works of Lscensee Rules 2006, by snvoksng Section 164 of Electrscsty

Act.2003. Section 164 reads as follows. “EXERCISES OF POWERS OF TELEGRAPH

AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CASES”. Under Telegraph Act 1885 Telegraph Poles (Wesght 150

Kg) and lsnes (Wsng span 10 to 12 Feet) can be constructed wsthout seeksng perisssson of

land owner. The 1885 Act ss iade for constructing coiiunscation net work for Raslways

and Telephones. The Section 164 Authorsty ss to be used sn- IN CERTAIN CASES”. However

taksng advantage of section 164 siiedsately afer passsng Act 2003 Msnsstry of Power

Governient of Indsa sssued a GO===eipowersng Power Grsd Corporation wsth Telegraph

Act 1885 Powers to enter snto any land wsthout consent. The Transisssson coipanses

were asked to apply for eieiption sn profaria. The coipany has to publssh the SCHME

DETAILS sn a news paper gsve 2ionths tiie and asksng for objections froi publsc. There

afer Power Grsd ss gsven Telegraph Authorsty to construct towersr lsnes wsthout seeksng

consent of the land owner or payient of coipensation.

Froi passsng of Electrscsty Act 2003 till 2018 Power Grsd constructed 1, 28,000 Ki Lsnes .

The land used @ 15 acers per Ki works out to 3.5 Msllson Acers. Thss has caused losses to

4 Msllson fariers. In 15 years Power Grsd dsd not pay even sRs.1r- (Rupees one only ) as

coipensation faiers for daiagsng thesr land value . Dursng the past 15 years Power Grsd

has been declarsng huge prosts but not paysng coipensation top fariers. (ss) Power Grsd

was siart and hsghly successful sn iaksng iockery of powers conferred on Dsstrsct

Magsstratesr Collectors. If Land ss DAMAGED under Telegraph Poles-lsnes OR Transisssson

towers- lsnes, coipensation iust be pasd under Telegraph Act 1885 Section 10(d). So

also Electrscsty Act 2003 , Works of Lscensee Rules 2006 Rule 3(2) When iaksng an order---

MAGISTRATErCOLLECTOR– “SHALL FIX, AFTER CONSIDARING THE REPRESENTATION OF

THE CONCRNED PERSONS, IF ANY, THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSETION OR OF ANNUAL

RENT, OR BOTH, WHICH SHOULD IN HIS OPENION “. These Acts, Rules are never studsed

by the Collectors. Collectors based on dsscusssons or leter froi Transisssson Coipanses

sssued proceedsngs gsvsng noisnal coipensation for crop daiage.

None of the Collectors has iade eforts to study the DAMAGE TO LAND UNDER TOWERS

AND LINES so as to award coipensation for LOSS OF LAND VALUE. These glorssed

Collectors rAdisnsstrators of our Nation dsd use a sota of coiionsense as to assess

DAMAGE or EVALUTE DIFFARENCE BETWEEN Telegraph POLE and Transisssson TOWER.

They should have questioned Transisssson Coipanses about the QUANTAM of DAMAGE

TO FARMERS LANDS DUE TO TRANSMISSION TOWERS AND LINES and dsrect payient of

coipensationn Collectors are aware that 86% fariers are siall & iargsnal and that

Towerrlsnes wsll daiage value of land rproperty totally value less and perianently and

that faiers be pasd coipensation. But then the Collectors besng what they are went

about sssusng PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ANY RULE OR LAWn For 15 years Transisssson

coipanses iade Collectors as accessorses to CRIMINAL TRESSPASS BY THE COMANIES by

provsdsng --WILL FULLY - MISLEADING -WRONG – ILLEGAL – MISGUIDING –FALSE

--INFORMATION. The Polsce lskewsse are isslead to eitend support to Transisssson

Coipanses for sllegal construction.

Q.3. Why were these RULES – FACTS – IRREGULORITIES – ILLEGALLTY - SUPRIME COURT

JUDGMENTS not hsghlsghtedn

Ans. Firstly 99% of famers whose land are damaged are small, marginal, lavani (DKT )Pattadars and many absentee land owners. Most of them are illiterate, belongs tosocially under privileged sections and have financial capacity to take legal action. Theyare totally unaware of the Acts and entitlement of compensation. Towers and linesdamage A PART OF LAND (Survey number). For example 400 KV Lines passing over 1Hector land damages 51 Meters land as Right of Way. In I hector4850x2: 9,000 Metersa 100meters stretch of line will damage (diminishes ) 5,100 Meters as right of way.Underneath permanent structures cannot be built. Electricity Act 1910 Prohibitsplanting of Trees / crops beyond 1 0 Feet(3 Meters ), Further land will be cut into 3pieces. The value as 1 (One Hector ) Land cut into 3 pieces will have no saleability,cannot be mortgaged , or even common cropping. Each farmers land damage has toassess based on its location, facilities, etc (SC. Kerala Electricity Board vs Levisha.Ref---- ) The land value has to be based on its futuristic development opportunity(SC=======) Further the Act 2003 and the Section 164 are totally issused by the Transisssson

coipanses . The Msnsstry Of Power Governient of Indsa as well as State Energy

Departient shave Colluded sn coiplscating PROCEDURE – GETTING CONSENT – FIXING-

PAYMENT OF COMPENSETION. Detasls are provsded sn Paras -----of the enclosed note .

The isschsef of Governients are evsdent as detasled below (a) In Andhra Pradesh State

Governient sssued Works of Lscensee Rules 2007 Dt-----. The Secretary, Energy

Departient, Chasrian’s of APTRANSCO have kept iade the Gazete sn thesr possessson

for 9 years. A copy of the GAZZETEE was iade avaslable to the Andhra Pradesh Electrscsty

Regulatory Coiisssson on ======(Ref====). The Governient of Telangana ss yet to

releases st .

State Governients have DELIBATERLY DELAYED sssusng Works of Lscensee Rules for over

10 to 12 years. Why the Rules are delayed and at whose snstance, ss a iater to be

snvestigated. Dursng the persod Power Grsd and State Transisssson coipanses went about

constructing Tower and Lsnes wsthout payient of coipensation. The only eiception ss

Kerala where sn the State Governient as well as Hsgh Court have dsrected transisssson

coipanses to pay daiages for land daiaged under Towers and Lsnes ,.

Q.4. Is Power Grsd provsdsng free servscesn

Ans.No. Power Grsd ss a regsstered under coipanses act. It ss pasd wheelsng (Servsce)

charges for transistng ELECTRICITY. Dursng5 years persod of 2013-13 to 2017-18 st has

declared net prost of Rs.31,184.2 Crores.(2017-18 Prost 8238.96 Crores), It has declared

dsvsdend of Rs.7,851.36 Crores. Tai pasd ss Rs.8337.29 Crores. Tai on dsvsdend ss

Rs.1531.08 crores. Dursng 5 years the length of lsnes drawn ss 48,390 KM. Towers

constructed 120975. Fariers land daiaged under Towers & Lsnes 6,15,792 Acers

(2,49,975 hectors). Coipensation for land daiage (ROW) NIL. (Reference Power Grsd

Annual Report 2017-18 at Page 30 and 32). The salary of sweeper ss Rs. 1,47,722r- per

ionth. Ref. Eastern Power dsstrsbution (APEPDCL) Rajahiundry No. 01019612 for 01-08-

2018 -31-08-2018.

Q.5. Is Telegraph Act 1885 has any provssson for coipensation for daiagsng

landrpropertyn

Ans :- YES. There ss aiple provssson under Act 1885 , Rule 10 (d) as follows:-

IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION,THE telegraph authorsty,

SHALL DO AS LITTLE DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE, AND WHEN IT HAS EXERCISED THOSE POWERS

IN REPECT OF ANY PROPERTY OTHER THAN THAT REFERRED TO IN THE CLAUSE (c) SHALL

PAY FULL COMPENSETIONM TO ALL PERSONS INTRESTED FOR ANY “DAMAGE” SUSTAINED

BY THEM BY REASON OF THE EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS”

Q.6. Why were these Act.1885, Section 10 (d), Act 2003 Rules 2006 , Supreie Court

Judgients, and decssson by States rCentral Electrscsty Regulatory Coiisssson (CERC) and

(Appellate Trsbunal for Electrscsty (ATE ) were not sipleiented by Collectors whsle sssusng

proceedsngsn

Ans:- Thss ss a dsfcult question to answer by ie! It wsll be snapproprsate for ie to wrste

that Collectors (IAS) are srresponssble or duib or arrogant! But the fact reiasns for 15

years 5 Msllson fariers lands are TOTALLY DAMAGED leavsng thei econoiscally snsecure

and socsally out casts. They are deprsved of LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTANALLY ELIGABLE

COMPENSETION, by a large prost iaksng coipany. Thss deprsvation of coipensation to 5

Msllson siall and iargsnal fariers ss done wsth the KNOWLEDGE and CONNIOVENCE of

large nuiber of Indsan Adisnsstrative Servsces ofcsals. The iute question ss whether

these IAS , who are responssble wsll be held enqusred snto and punsshed ss beyond iy

lsists .

Q.7. Has Supreie Court gsven any judgients sn regard to probleis faced by fariers due

to Electrscsty Act 2003n

Ans:-In 2006 sn S.C. Kerala Electrscsty Board Vs Lsvssha, In sc 650 (18 th May 2007). Made

followsng pronounceient .Para.10. The sstes of the land, THE DISTENCE BETWEEN THE

HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICITY lsne lasd there over, the eitent of the lsne thereon as also the

fact whether the hsgh voltage lsne possess over the siall track of land or through isddle

of the land and other ssislar relevant factors sn our opsnson would be deterisnative. The

value of the land would be a relevant factor. The owner of the land sn a gsven sstuation

iay lose hss substantive rsght to use the property for the purpose for whsch the saie was

ieant to be used “

Q.8. What are the other siportant sssues helpful to fariers to get coipensationn

Ans:- The Honourable Supreie Court of Indsa has passed iany judgients upholdsng the

rsghts of fariers so as to enable thei to get full coipensation for loss property under

Towers ,Lsnes, cropsr trees , structures (Sheds , Tube wells etc ). Detasls of Judgients and

rules are provsded sn the web.www.sndsanfariers.org (s) Land ss Huian Rsght .It cannot

be deprsved wsth out due process of Law and coipensation (ss) Desnstion of property

(sss)Daiage due to towers and lsnes ss SUBSTETIAL. (sv) Siall & Margsnal fariers are

elsgsble for coipensation for the entire land (survey) nuiber (sv) The Collectors iust si

coipensation based on each land location ,proisisty to towns, roads ,sndustry ,

snstitutions and facslsties of water , electrscsty etc. If the fariers are not satissed wsth

coipensation sied by Collector fariers can sle REVISION BEFORE REGULATORY

COMMISSION.

Details Acts-Rules -Illegal Activities by Companies- Legal issues.

S.No. Date Description of the EventPage

No’s inaffidavit

ParaNo’s in

affidavit1 Clarifcaton on Sipreme Coirt Jidgment –No.10953 of 2016

Dt.14-12-2016 On issies of -Consent of Land Owner and fxingcompensaton by District Jidge .

2 Caise of acton for fling the P. I. L.

3 Sibstantal damage of land inder High Tension TransmissionTowers and Lines.

4 Desnstion of “Diminiton of Land Valie inder Towers & lines– Supreie Court. Kerala Electrscsty Board vs Levssha Appeal(Csvsl)289 of 2006 Dt.18-05-2007

5 Defniton of Property’. .Jslu Bhas Nan Bhas vs State of GujaratSupreie Court.(Csvsl) 2111-15-1984.Dated . 20-07-1994

6 Declaration of “Right to Property as a Himan Right” S.C. SLP.(Csvsl) 28034r2011.State of Haryana vs Mukesh Kuiar

7 Deprivaton of Property Right.S.C.1953.Stae of West Bengal vsSubodh Gopal Bose.17-12-1953.SC1954,AIR92-1954,SCR.587

8 Defniton of Sibstantal Deprivaton –S.C.SCR, 1954.674. Dwaraka Das vs Sholapur Spsnnsng Mslls

9 Illegalsty of notices by Transisssson Coipanses

10 Jidicial Powers of Regilatory Commissions.Appelate TrsbunalFoe Electrscsty .(A.T.E) Appeal No.83 of 2010 Dt.07-09-2011

11 APTRANSCO not releassng Works of Lscensee Rules 2007.

12 Specsal features of Electrscsty Act 2003.

13 Coiparsson between 21st century Hsgh Tensson Towers and 19th

Telegraph Poles14 Mssuse of section 164 by Power Grsd Corporation

15 Illegal & issleadsng notices by transisssson coipanses. 16 Illegalsty of G.O.I. Gazete 2003 eieipting coipanses under

section 16417 Faslure of Dsstrsct Collector to protect faiers property rsghts18 Act 2003 ,Section 164 encroachsng on Judscsal Powers of

Regulatory Coiissssons.

19 Unconstitutional provsssons of Telegraph Act .1885.

20 Discriminaton of secton 164. Governments and citiens.

21 Vsolation of act 2003 provsssons by Transisssson Coipanses.

22 Delsberate plan to deny payient of coipensation to fariers.

23 Prost iaksng Transisssson Coipanses and thesr sllegalactivsties.

24 Unaithoriied Giidelines by Ministry of Power in 20153.

25 Illegal and unauthorszed proceedsngs by Collectors ssnce 2003.

26 Mssgusdsng Hsgh Court by slsng sllegal afdavsts.

27 Power grsd corporation issleadsng afdavsts before World Bank.

28 Giidelines for Fixing Compensaton.SC.Ref.No. 148- 1537/2000. Dt.07-01-2007

29 Importance of Following Procedire in Democracy. S.C. RanjstThakur vs Unson of Indsa. S.C.AIR.1987. S.C.2386. .

30 Right to Resist Prior Intmaton is ssental. Dilip SinghChoihan vs Gijartat Vajra Nigam (Transmission company) Gujarat Hsgh Court. CsvslrSCAr1834r2011. Dt.29-08-2013

31 Distncton -between 19th Centiry Telegraph act. 18853 and 21st

Centiry lectricity Act. Gujarat Hsgh Court.CsvslrSCAr1834r2011. Dt.29-08-2011

32 Development of society- 19th centiry & 21st centiry. GujaratHsgh Court. CsvslrSCAr1834r2011.Dt.29-08-2011.

33 Telegraph Aithority Cannot be Conferred with Powers inder lectricity Act. 1970:11-09-1966-S.C. A.I.R.1970 sc 491 (1970)3SC 851.

34 Applicability of the provisions of the Right to FairCompensaton and Transparency in land Acqiisiton,Rehabilitaton and Resetlement Act, 201 .

35 Prayer

PLACE: (FOR FILING CASES) Petitioner.

DATE: ------

CHRONOLOGICAL / RUNNING IND X.

S.NO xhibit Descripton of Dociment Date ofDociment

Date of flingof Dociment

Page No.

1 Servsce Certiscate

2 Court Fee

3 Wrst Fee

4 Anneiure

5 Wrsten Subisssson

6 Lsst of Events

7 Material Papers

8 A – 1. Photo of 400 KV Hsgh Tensson Tower

9 A – 2. Power Grsd Notice 2013

10 A – 3. Power Grsd Notice 2017

11 A – 4. Rules by Governient of A.P sn 2007.

12 A – 5. G.O. No.6 – 6.03.2017 AuthorszsngCollectors by Governient of A.P.

13 A –6. G.O. No.83 –20.06.2017 Fsisng coipensation by Governient of A.P.

14 A –7. Gusdelsnes by GOI, Dated. 15.10.2015 Fsisng coipensation

15 A –8. Coiion Model proforia for getng eieiption Under Section . 164, Issued by GOI,

16 A –9. Lsne detasls Advertiseient sn News Papers.

17 A –10. Hsghlsghts of Agrsculture Census 2010-11.

18 A –11. Stateient of detasls of Power Grsd prost dsvsdend Tai wsth operative results.

19 A –12. Power Grsd Annual Report.

20 A –13. Collectors Illegal orders.

21 A –14. Illegal afdavst by Power Grsd Corporation.

22 A –15. Power Grsd Stateient to World Bank.

23 A –16. Land Acqussstion Act.2013r15.

Place: Petitioner

1. Clarifcaton on Sipreme Coirt JUDGM NT OF 2016 ON CONS NT OF LAND OWN R AND

FIXING OF COMP NSATION BY DISTRICT JUDG .

The sssue of that the Honorable Supreie Court of Indsa sn respect that the decssson rendered

on 14-12-2016 sn Csvsl Appeal No.10953 of 2016 & batch sn the case of Power Grsd corporation

of Indsa ltd, vs Century Teitiles & Industrses ltd, held that there ss no need for consent of land

owner and that that aggrieved has to approach District Jidges for compensaton. The

decssson sn the above case is not relevant to PIL fled by the pettoner. The Power Grsd

Corporation of Indsa as well as other transisssson coipanses are placsng iuch relsance upon

the decssson rendered on 14.12.2016 sn the above case .

Para. 21. Supreie Court had held as hereunder sn regard to the applscabslsty of Rule 3(1) of

The Lscensees Rules, 2006. Section 10 of the Indsan Telegraph Act, 1885 eipowers the

Telegraph Authorsty to place and iasntasn a telegraph lsne under, over, along or across and

posts sn or upon any siiovable property. The provssson of Section 10 (b) of the Indsan

Telegraph Act, 1885 iakes st abundantly clear that whsle acqusrsng the power to lay down

telegraph lsnes, the Central Governient does not acqusre any rsght other than that of user sn

the property. Further, Section 10 (d) of the Indsan Telegraph Act, 1885 oblsges the Telegraph

Authorsty to ensure that st causes as lstle daiage as posssble and that the Telegraph

Authorsty shall also be oblsged to pay full coipensation to all persons snterested for any

daiage sustasned by thei by reason of the eiercsse of those powers.As Power Grsd ss gsven

the powers of Telegraph Authorsty, Rule 3(I) of the Rules, 2006 ceases to apply sn the case of

Power Grsd by vsrtue of eiecution clause contasned sn sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 whsch reads as

under:

Para. "3 (4). - Nothsng contasned sn thss rule shall efect the ‘powers conferred upon any lscensee

under Section of the Act."

We, thus, have no hesstation sn rejecting the arguient of the wrst petitioner that the sipugned

action of the Power Grsd was contrary, to the provsssons of the Electrscsty Act, 2003. "

A perusal of the aforesasd observations of the Hon'ble Supreie Court would clearly reveal that as

Power Grsd ss treated as an authorsty under the Indsan. Telegraph Act, 1885 and that st acqusres all

such powers whsch are vested sn a Telegraph authorsty, under the provsssons of the Indsan

Telegraph Act, 1885 sncludsng the power to elsisnate any obstruction sn the laysng of power

. · . . ·· ·

transisssson lsnes and that legsslature had not· peristed any ksnd of sipedsient r obstruction sn

achsevsng thss objective through the scheie of the Indsan Telegraph Act.

It ss subisted, wsth respect, that the aforesasd decssson rendered by Hon'ble Supreie Court of

Indsa ss clearly dsstingusshable on facts. Varsous facets of law were nesther argued nor brought to

the ksnd notice of the Hon'ble Supreie Court of Indsa and the decssson was rendered sn the

particular facts of that case wsthout proper arguient.. It ss well recognszed that a decssson

should be treated as gsven per sncur-ai when st ss gsven sn sgnorance of the teris of a (statute

or of a rule havsng the force of a statute. So far as the aforesasd judgient shows, no arguient

was addressed to Hon'ble Judges on the question of the applscabslsty of provsssons of the specsal.

Statute vsz., The Electrscsty Act, 2003 whsch can be suiiarszed as hereunder:-

The Electrscsty Act, 2003 ss a specsal statute dealsng wsth subject iater of electrscsty. Section 174

of the Electrscsty Act 2003 contasns a non-obstante clause whsch provsdes that sf there ss any

eipress confsct wsth any other Act, the provsssons of the 2003 Act would prevasl. The Telegraph

Act 1885 does not contasn any such non-obstante clause. Hence, sf there ss any snconssstency

between 2003 Act and the 1885 Act, the provsssons of the 2003 Act shall prevasl.

Provsssons Sections.67 and 68 of 2003 Act would be applscable to all the lscensees srrespective of

whether they are eipowered to eiercsse powers. of the Telegraph Authorsty under section 164

of 2003 Act or not. In teris of sub-section (2) of Section 67, the approprsate Governient has

been authorszed to fraie rules sn relation to cases and csrcuistances sn whsch the consent sn

wrsting, snter alsa, of the owner or occupser of the land shall be requsred for carrysng out works,

the nature and persod of notice to be gsven by the lscensee before carrysng out works, the

procedure and ianner of conssderation of objection and suggestions recesved sn accordance wsth

such notice, the authorsty whsch iay grant perisssson sn the csrcuistances where the owner or

occupser objects to carrysng out of works and deterisnation and payient of coipensation to

persons afected by works under Section 67.

Power Grsd Corporation despste besng conferred wsth powers of the Telegraph Authorsty under

1885 Act by the Approprsate Governient, have been granted perisssson to establssh over head

lsnes as per iandatory requsreient under Section 68 of the 2003 Act. Thus st ss clear that

provsssons of Sections 67 & 68 are bsndsng also on the Respondents notwsthstandsng the

notiscation under Section I64 of 2003 Act.

It cannot be debated that non-obstante clause contasned sn Section 51 of the 1910 Act has been

purposely oisted sn Section 164 of 2003 Act. Thss would sndscate that the prsiacy has been gsven

to the Rules whsch iay be fraied by the Governient. As a iater of fact, sn the 'Works of

Lscensee Rules 2006', the Central Governient sntroduced Rule 3 (4) wsth a specssc purpose of

brsngsng back the efect of non -obstante clause occurrsng sn Section 51 sn order to overrsde the

efect of sub-rules (I) to (3) of Rule 3 whsch provsdes for consent of land owners.

Thus, the Central Governient by fraisng the rules has eipressly chosen to gsve overrsdsng efect

of notiscation under Sec.164 over the requsreient of the consent of the land owners. Under Sec.

I64 of the 2003 Act, the Governient iay accept the powers of the Telegraph Authorsty under the

Telegraph Act subject to the iodsscations and lsistations that iay be thought st. Therefore, st ss

for the Governient to decsde as to what rules are to be fraied and to what eitent the powers of

the Telegraph Authorsty were "to be eitended. Thus, st can be conclude that Sec. I64 as st stands

does not have any overrsdsng efect on any part of Sec.67 of the 2003 Act.

If the sntention of law iakers was to provsde Section 164 wsth power to overrsde other sections

and to have saie powers as Section 51 of the Indsan Electrscsty Act 1910, the section would have

been worded dsferently and would have started as "Notwsthstandsng anythsng contasned sn

Section 67(2) or rules fraied there under..."

The provsssons of the Sections 12 to 18 of the 1910 Act are applscable sn teris of Section 185 (2)

(b) of the 2003 Act. Therefore, by vsrtue of Section 174 of the 2003 Act, Sections 12 to 18 of the

1910 Act would have the precedence over any other legsslation. Thss would iake st clear that

even assuisng that there was a confsct between the provsssons of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and

the provsssons of the 1 910 Act, the later Act would prevasl.

Merely because certasn powers of the Telegraph Act had been conferred on a Lscensee, st does

not iean that the Lscensee has becoie a Telegraph Authorsty as desned sn the Telegraph Act.

Ssiply because certasn powers 'of Telegraph Authorsty are avaslable to a Lscensee, st does not

iean that all the rsghts and lsabslsties of the Lscensee would be governed by the Telegraph Act.

Afer enactient of 2003 Act, Indsan Power Sector ss governed by thss Act. Section 67(4) confers

power upon the Approprsate Coiisssson to resolve dssputes between land owner and the

lscensee. Thss power ss untraiieled and ss not sipasred by the rules fraied under Section 67(2).

Rules fraied under section 67(2) would govern the worksng of lscensee and not the Coiisssson "

Pronounceients of law, whsch are not part of the ratio decsded are classed as obster dscta and are

not authorstative. Wsth all due respect to the Hon'ble Judges who passed the aforesasd judgient,

st ss subisted that the sasd judgient ss not bsndsng upon thss Hon'ble Court sn vsew of the

particular facts and csrcuistances of the case and as the saie was delsvered wsthout proper

arguient and wsthout reference to the relevant provsssons of the Act conferrsng eipress power sn

overrsdsng Sec. 164 of the Act.

In the case of Munscspal Corporation of Delhs vs Gurnai Kaur reported sn AIR 1989 SC 38,

Hon'ble Supreie Court of Indsa referrsng to precedential value of a decssson rendered by st sn a

wrst petition sled under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indsa, held as follows :-

" A decssson should be treated as gsven per sncur-ai when st ss gsven sn sgnorance of the teris of a

statute or of a rule havsng the force of a statute. So far as the order shows, no arguient was

addressed to the Court on the question or not whether any dsrection could properly be iade

coipellsng the Munscspal Corporation to construct a stall at the pstchsng sste of a paveient

squater.

Professor P.J. Fstzgerald, edstor of the Saliond on Jurssprudence, 12th edn. eiplasns the concept

of sub sslentio at p. I53 sn these words: "A decssson passes sub sslentio, sn the technscal sense that

has coie to be atached to that phrase, when the particular posnt of law snvolved sn the decssson

ss not percesved by the court or present to sts isnd. The Court iay conscsously decsde sn favors of

one party because of posnt A, whsch st conssders and pronounces upon. It iay be shown,

however, that logscally the court should not have decsded sn favors of the particular party unless st

also decsded posnt B sn hss favors; but posnt B was not argued or conssdered by the court. In such

csrcuistances, although posnt B was logscally snvolved sn the facts and although the case had a

specssc outcoie, the decssson ss not an authorsty on posnt B. Posnt B ss sasd to pass sub sslentio.

In Gerard v. Worth of Parss Ltd. (k)., [1936] 2 All E.R. 905 (C.A.), the only posnt argued was on the

question of prsorsty of the clasiant's debt, and, on thss arguient besng heard, the Court granted

the order. No conssderation was gsven to the question whether a garnsshee order could properly

be iade on an account standsng sn the naie of the lsqusdator. When, therefore, thss very posnt

was argued sn a subsequent case before the Court of Appeal sn Lancaster Motor Co. (London)

Ltd. v. Breisth, Ltd., (1941] I KB 675. The Court held stself not bound by sts prevsous decssson. Ssr

Wslfrsd Greene, M.R., sasd that he could not help thsnksng that the posnt now rassed had been

delsberately passed sub sslentio by counsel sn order that the posnt of substance isght be

decsded. We went on to say that the posnt had to be decsded by the earlser 'court before st could

iake the order whsch st dsd; nevertheless, ssnce st was decsded "wsthout arguient, wsthout

reference to the crucsal 'words of the rule, and wsthout any cstation of authorsty", st was not

bsndsng and would not be followed. Precedents sub sslentio and wsthout arguient are of no

ioient. Thss rule has ever ssnce been followed. One of the chsef reasons for the doctrsne of

precedent ss that a iater that has once been fully argued and decsded should not be allowed to

be reopened. The wesght accorded to dscta varses wsth the type of dsctui. Mere casual

eipresssons carry no wesght at all. Not every passsng eipressson of a Judge, however eisnent, can

be treated as an ei cathedra stateient, havsng the wesght of authorsty. "

It is therefore sibmited, with respect that the decision rendered in the case of the Power Grid

Corp. of India Ltd., vs. Centiry Textles & Indistries Ltd., is clearly distngiishable and has no

applicaton either to the facts or the issies of the law that arise for consideraton in these

proceedings before this Honorable High Coirt, In W.P. (PIL) 180 of 2017.

2. CAUS OF ACTION FOR FILING TH P. I. L.

The main caise of acton in the PIL (i) “is agriciltire land owned by a farmer is considered as a

property right inder consttiton of India? (ii) can the farmers landed property (agriciltire land)

right be sibstantally damaged/ valie totally rediced / diminiton withoit die process of law?

(iii) Can a proft making company deprive CITIZ NS OF TH IR PROP RTY WITH FOLLOWING DU

PROC SS OF LAW BY INFORMING TH LAND OWN R OF HIS NTITL M NT AND PAYM NT OF

COMP NS TION? (iv) IS T L GRAPH ACT 18853 and riles of not getng consent owner for

constricton of Telegraph Poles and wires be made applicable to lectric Towers and lines in 21 st

centiry? (v) Can damage to land inder Telegraph Poles and Lines Is Comparable to High Tension

lectric lines and Towers? Can property of citiens be damaged withoit assessing the damage and

payment inder any Act of Parliament ?

. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAG OF LAND UND R HIGH T NSION TRANSMISSION TOW RS AND LIN S.

ach 400 KV Tower wesghs 15 MT, requsres 1000. Sq ieters land for foundation. Under 400 KV

lsnes 46 + 5.5 Meters land ss requsred for Rsght of Way and Msnsiui clearance (Total 51. 5

ieters r 154.5.feet) between conductor and trees. each km line permanently Diminishes /

Damages. 53.53 Hectors land ( 14/153 Acers ). (ANNUXUR -1)

4. D FINITION OF “DIM NSION OF LAND VALU .” - SUPR M COURT D CISION.

Sipreme Coirt of India has given giidelines for fxing dimension of land inder towers and

lines (SC sn Case. Appeal (Csvsl) 289 of 2006, Kerala Electrscsty Board vs Levssha, Judgient,

Dt.18-05-2007) as follows:-

“the sites of land , the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid over, the extent of

line there on, as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small track of

land or throigh the middle of the land and other similar relevant factors in oir opinion woild

be the determinatve. the valie of it woild also be a relevant factor. the owner of the land

firther more , in a given sitiaton may loose his sistentatve right to ise the property for the

pirpose for which the same was meant to be ised “.based on the S.C. Jidgment, the Kerala

High Coirt CRP no. 4 2 of 2010 dated .26.053.2014 passed orders directng transmission

company to pay . however the power grid or APTRANSCO or TSTRANSCO did not follow the

sipreme coirt directons since 2007.

53. D FINITION OF PROP RTY - SUPR M COURT D CISION.

The Sipreme Coirt has defned property as following - property in legal sense-giaranteed

and protected. sc 1994:- Jili Bhai Nan Bhai Vs State of Gijarat, 20-07-1994-s.c.civil.2111-153-

1984.“Property sn legal sense ieans an “Aggregate of rsghts whsch are Guaranteed and

protected by law” st eitends to every specses of valuable rsght and snterest, iore particularly,

ownershsp and eiclussve rsght to a thsng, the rsght to dsspose of the thsng sn every legal way, to

possess st, to use st and to eiclude everyone else froi snterfersng wsth st. The doisnson or sn

desnste rsght of use of or dssposstion whsch one way lawfully eiercsse over particular thsngs or

subjects ss called property. The eiclussve rsght of possesssng, enjoysng, and dsspossng of a thsng

ss property sn legal paraieters.“Therefore The Word Property Connotes very Thing Which Is

Sibject Of Ownership, Corporal Or Incorporeal, Tangible Or Intangible ,Visible Or Invisible ,

Real Or Personal, very Thing That Has An xchangeable Valie Or Which Goes To Make Up –

Wealth – state – Statis “.

6. D CLARATION OF RIGHT TO PROP RTY AS A HUMAN RIGHT – SUPR M COURT D CISION.

S.C. 2011 :-SC.SLP.(Civil) 280 4/2011 State of Haryana vs Mikesh Kimar. Held that “The

rsght to property ss now conssdered to be not only constitutional or statutory rsght but also a

huian rsght. Huian rsghts have already been conssdered sn reali of sndsvsdual rsghts such as

rsght to health, rsght to lsvelshood, rsght to shelter and eiployient etc. But now huian rsghts

are gasnsng a iulti-faceted dsiensson. Rsght to Property ss also conssdered very iuch a part

of the new dsiensson. Therefore, even clasi of adverse possessson has to be read sn that

conteit.

7. D PRIVATION OF PROP RTY RIGHT” - SC 1953 :-State of West Bengal vs Sibodh Gopal

Bose.17-12-1953 -SC.19534.AIR.92.19534, SCR.5387. It held that “ No cut and drsed test can be

foriulated as to whether sn a gsven case the owner ss deprsved of hss property. Each case

iust be decsded as st arsses on sts own facts”. “Broadly speaking it may be said an

abridgement woild be so sibstantal, as to amoint to deprivaton within the meaning of

artcle, 1, in efect it with from the possession and enjoyment of the ownership or serioisly

Impaired ise and enjoyment by him, or materially rediced its valie.”. Here sn the case of

petitioner the deprsvation of property ss huge whsch has totally reduced the value.

8. D FINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL D PRIVATION :- SUPR M COURT D CISION.

Sipreme Coirt. SCR (1954).674. Dwarka Das vs Sholapur Spsnnsng islls held,

The SC held that “by sibstantal deprivaton is meant the sort of deprivaton that

sibstantally robs a man of those atribites of enjoyment which normally accompany rights

to or an interest in property. The form is inessental. It is the sibstance that one mist

seek.” Herein the land inderneath afer constricton of Towers and lines will remain in the

name of owner farmer. The learned Jidges FURTH R “Made Observaton Of -- Deprivaton –

Illisionary Phantom Title –Leaving The Mere Hisk Of Title : As of 2018 property is declared

as Himan Right .Herein die to towers and lines a farmers land is Mitlated. Bit

compensaton is denied on variois fimsy groinds of “ Land Will Remain In The Name Of

Farmers—Farmers Land Is Not Acqiired “- It is becaise most of the farmers are small

holders and illiterate, have no economic capacity to pirsie the issies legally or throigh

administraton For over 153 (200 -2018 ) years the exploitaton by companies is happening

inchecked.

9. ILL GALITY OF NOTIC S BY TRANSMISSION COMPANI S.

Notces issied by Transmission Companies are contrary to lectricity Act 200 and Riles

2006. Firther they illegal and violaton Consttitonal Right to property. In fact they are

criminal trespassers into farmers (private) land. Transmission companies even thoigh

licensed Under Act 200 by Regilatory Commission are not following procedire as

stpilated inder Riles 2006. They claim that afer empowerment inder Secton 164 of

Telegraph act 18853, they need not follow any Riles 2006 of seeking consent or seek

Collector’s permission Under Rie (2) . This is denying land owner/farmers of right

/provision for fling revision inder Rile 1 (1) 1 before the Commission. It is also

encroaching on the powers conferred on the Regilatory Commission.

10. JUDICIAL POW RS OF R GULATORY COMMISSIONS.

Appellate Tribinal For lectricity (Ate) Upholding Right Of Commissions. In case No. 2011,

Appeal. NO.8 0F 2010, DT.07-09-2011, held that The Regilatory Commissions have power

to decide compensaton.(Para 93). Any dsspute arsssng sn regard to coipensation would have

to be resolved by the STATE COMMISSION. What is confising to farmers is , if the Collector

issies compensaton proceedings inder Telegraph Act, 18853, how can a land owner farmers

fle revision inder Works of Licensee Riles 2006, Rile ( ) . Herein Companies issied

notces inder Telegraph Act 18853. The Collector also issied proceedings only inder

Telegraph Act. The Works of Lscensee Riles 2006 are not referred to in the notce given to

land owner farmers by the companies. The transmission companies leters have not

informed the Collector aboit the provisions of Riles 2006. The proceedings by the

Collectors do not refer to Riles 2006. Not referring to Riles 2006 in the NOTIC OR

COLL CTORS PROC DDINGS will deny the land owner famers of HIS RIGHT TO FIL

R V SION.

11. APTRANSCO NOT R L ASING WORKS OF LIC NS RUL S 2007.

I sibmit for 9 years ofcials of APTRANSCO/ TSTRANSCO kept, Riles 2007 away from

Collectors, farmers and even Regilatory Commissions. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, vide

G.O.Ms.No.24 Dated 27-02-2007 issied Works of Licensee Riles, 2007 (Annexire-4) as

giidelines for APTRANSCO. However the GO. 24 of 2007 was not made available to the

Collectors or to the Andhra Pradesh lectricity Regilatory Commission and to piblic. A copy

of the orders issied by the Department of nergy shows that it is kept with APTRANSCO for

9 years. The G.O. MS. No.6 dated 06.0 .2017 (Annexire.53) was made available to the

Collectors by the, Prsncspal Secretary, Energy Departient, Govt of A.P. Further vsde G.O. RT.

No. 8 . Dated 20-06-2017 (Annexire-6) The Principal Secretary informed the Collectors, to

pay compensaton for towers and lines and also R o W details. Shockingly similar directons

are not taken by Government of Telangana tll now.

GO.No.6 of 2017 was sssued based on a leter dated 05-11-2017 froi the Secretary, A.P.

Electrscsty Regulatory Coiisssson. (Ref.2 of G.O.6 of 2017). The Prsncspal Secretary, Energy

snforied the Dsstrsct Collectors, about the eisstence of hss Departients sssusng of Works of

Lscense Rules on 27-02-2007 and that as of 06-03-2017 ,afer careful eiaisnation of the

iater, the Collectors are eipowered to eiercsse the powers bestowed on thei vsde Rules

2007.

G.O.RT. No.83 Dated 20-06-2017, the Prsncspal Secretary, Energy Govt. of A.P. dsrected the

Dsstrsct Collectors of Andhra Pradesh, snforisng thei about Governient of Indsa Gusdelsnes

Date.3r7r2015,(Annexire.7) sisng coipensation for loss of land value under towers and lsnes

. Surprsssngly GOI recoiiended payient of coipensation @ 85% of land value under

towers, whsch ss sncreased to 100 % by Govt of AP, and GOI, coipensation under lsnes froi

15% reduced to 10%. The Gusde lsnes by Msnsstry of Power GOI of 2015 and order of Secretary,

Energy of AP, sndscates that the coipensation by Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa, a

Governient of Indsa coipany and APTRANSCO a Governient of Andhra Pradesh coipany

dsd not pay coipensation for loss of land value under Towers and lsnes froi Act 2003 and

Rules 2006 r2007. The Electrscsty Act 2003 clasis that Governients have coipletely

dsstanced froi snterfersng sn powerr electrscsty afasrs. But sn realsty both GOI and State

Governient got eieiption under Section 164 froi followsng Rules and issused the Power

Of Telegraph Authorsty to cheat and deprsve faiers of thesr legally entitled coipensation. It ss

to be noted that Sensor governient adisnsstrators have been worksng as CEO of Generation,

transisssson and dsstrsbution coipanses. They have used all thesr ianspulative skslls of Act

2003, section 164 provssson to avosd coipensation to isllsons of helpless siall fariers sn the

reiote vsllages across the country. Indecently these CEO have been bestowed iany honours

for thesr outstandsng and successful ianageient of coipanses.

12. SP CIAL F ATUR S OF L CTRICITY ACT 200 .

The Act 2003 ss iade wsth outstandsng features, so as iake POWER SECTOR sndependent and

efcsent. Rules 2006 iakes st oblsgatory for the lscensee transisssson coipany to seek

consent Under Rule 3 (1)(a). Legally seeksng consent , iakes st oblsgatory on the part of

lscensee to provsde land owner followsng detasls :- (1)The purpose ( 2) Detasls of daiage to

the landr property due to towers and lsnes( 3) Ofer of coipensation (4) Naie & address of

the person to be contacted sn the coipany (5) Duration of the ofer (6) Payient duration. The

works of lscensee rules 2006, iake the coipany oblsgatory to sssue ofer to every sndsvsdual

land owner separately.

I subist that sf the land owner refuses consent, the lscensee has to get wrsten perisssson

froi the Dsstrsct Collector. The Collectors has to sssue proceedsngs only under rule 2006 rule

3(2) afer hearsng the representation. The coipensation siation has to be done for each

farier. The coipany has to iake payient afer whsch the Collector wsll gsve perisssson sn

wrsting to the coipany to sipleient works. The Collectors proceedsngs iust be under rule

3(2). Under rule 3 (3) every order iade by Collector under sub rule (1) shall be subject to

revssson by the Coiisssson. As per Act 2003, the orders of the Coiisssson can be appealed

before the Appellate Trsbunal for Electrscsty. (A.T.E.).

Act 2003, has iade aiple provssson under Section 67 for fraisng Works of Lscensee Rules to

be iade by APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTS. “Thss part deals wsth works requsred to be carrsed

out by lscensees (For laysng down or placsng electrscsty supply lsnes etc), procedural

requsreient for placsng overhead lsnes etc. Thss part has precedent sn the Indsan electrscsty act

1910. (sn Section 12 to 19). Section 67 (1) It has provssson for opensng up of streets, raslways

etc. Section 67 (1)(a) deals wsth open and break any street, raslway or traiways. 67 (1)

(b)sewers , tunnels , pspes Section 67 (c)(d)(e)(f) gsves gusdelsnes sn dealsng wsth snstitutions of

Governients, roads, raslways, iunscspalsties, local boards etc.

Section 67 (2) Authorszes Approprsate Governients May, by rules iade sn thss behalf. Section

67 (2)(a) the cases and csrcuistances’ sn whsch the consent sn wrsting of the approprsate

Governient, local authorsty, owner or occupser, as the case iay be , shall be requsred for

carrysng out works; Section 67 (2)(b) the authorsty whsch iay grant perisssson sn the

csrcuistances where owner or occupser objects to the carrysng out of works; Section 67 (2)(c)

nature and persod of notice to be gsven b the lscensee; Section 67 (2)(d) prescrsbes procedure

for rasssng objections 67 (2)(e) Deterisnation And Payient Of Coipensation Or Rent To The

Afected Persons By Works Under Thss Section. Section 67 (2) (f) Section 67 (2) (p) procedures

for varsous sssues to be followed by lscensee.

Section 67 (3) A Lscensee Shall ,In Eiercsse Of Any Of The Powers Conferred By Or Under Thss

Section And The Rules Made There Under, Cause As Lstle Daiage, Detrsient And

Inconvensence As May Be, And Shall Make Full Coipensation For Any Daiage , Detrsient Or

Inconvensence Caused By Hsi Or By Any One Eiployed By Hsi”

The paper publscation (Anneiure – 9) seeksng objection froi publsc to be sent to Chsef

Engsneer of the transisssson coipany ss sllegal. But the Act 2003 and Rules 2006 have

conferred power to recesve objection only by the Dsstrsct Collector and Regulatory

Coiissssons.”

Electrscsty Act 2003 Key Features (Ref. S.K. Cheterjee, 3rd edstion .page 13) are as follows :-

The Act 2003 ss iade to develop coipetition wsth regulatory overssght sn the fraie work

around the electrscsty act 2003, to encourage efcsency sn perforiance and regulatory

overssght, to safe guard consuier‘s snterest and at the saie tiie ensure recovery of costs for

the snvestor.--Power is intoxicatng. Shedding of power therefore needs coirage and

convicton. The Government has envisaged these virties throigh new law. There is complete

distancing of Government from Regilatons and commercial actvites in the new scenario of

the law--------the act distances from all forms of Regilatons -----the State lectricity Boards

down the decades =======--.-----it has bred inefciency that has CORRAD D TH SYST M

FROM WITHIN .------the new law strikes at very root of ---- this malaise by pitng an end to

the monopoly -----coipetition ss the hall iark of the new legsslation------Regilatory

Commissions are nvisaged as Watch Dogs---the provision for Appellate Tribinal for

lectricity meets the need for a specialiied coirt to deal only with electricity related cases.

The Parlsaient conssdered Electrscsty Act 2003 as a progresssve legsslation sn true sense”. Act

has iany specssc provssson of Section 2. Lsisting role of Governients have National Electrscsty

Polscy to be revsewed regularly, Sec.4. national polscy for rural area & non-conventional energy,

S. 12 to 24 –Lscenssng procedure 67. Works of lscensees Rules to provsde gusdance to lscensees,

S. 76 to 109 constituting of Regulatory Coiissssons, 110 to 125 powers of Appellate trsbunal

for Electrscsty and also. 126 to 130 and 135 to 152 for Investigation, enforceient ofences and

penalties.

1 . Comparison Between 21st Centiry High Tension Towers And 19th Telegraph Poles:-

The consequence of constructing Transisssson towers and lsne (WORKS) wsll perianently

daiage the landed property of a Land owner. It ss necessary to evaluate “dsference between

a 19th century Telegraph Poler lsne and a 21st century Hsgh Tensson Transisssson Towers and

lsnes. A Telegraph Pole Wesghs iere, 200 kg and occupses 10 to 15 SFT. They are iostly by

ssde of Raslway Tracks or adjosnsng roads and are not hariful to HUMANS OR ANIMALS. In

coiparsson, the iasssve and awesoie Transmission Tower of 400 kv weighs 153 Metric Tons

with hige and wide foindatons to with stand weight of the towers and wind velocity. ach

400 KV tower occipies 1000 sq. Meters and needs 46 meters ( 1530 feet ) Right of Way and

another 10 feet margin from lines. For one kilometre of 400 KV transmission line 4/ 53

hectors (153 acres ) land will be wasted permanently . It ss dangerous to huians and ansials

whsle passsng under lsnes, especsally dursng rasns. In legal and econoiscs terisnology the land

ss perianently daiaged and sts value wsll be eternally dsisnsshed. (process of reduction -

New –websste). Further electrscsty Act 1910 prohsbsts land owners under towers and lsnes,

froi construction of perianent structure of houses or factorses or schools or coiiercsal

coipleies. Even Tress rcrops whsch grow hsgher than 10 feet, are not allowed underneath

transisssson lsnes. The hsgh tensson transisssson lsnes have electroiagnetic radsation efect.

It ss Scsentiscally approved that eiposure of radsation ss lskely to cause cancer or tuiour or

genetic dssorders to Huians and Ansials.

14. MISUS OF S CTION 164 BY POW R GRID.

Details of misise Secton 164 by Power Grid corporaton of India Ltd in connivance with

Ofcials in Ministry Of power In Government of India.

The Section 164 has a provssson “Eiercsse Of Powers Of Telegraph Authorsty” –“ In Certain

Cases” Electrscsty act 2003 was passed on 26-05-2003. The Act had sncorporated sections as

stated above sncludsng Rules for Lscensees and Regulatory Coiissssons. However on 24-12-

200 , Ministry of Power GOI, inder Secton 164 , issied a gaiete No. 1148 ,S .O, 146 ( )

Dt.24-12-200 “Where Power Grid Corporaton Of India(PGCIL) ------A Government

Company ----- For Proper Coordinaton Of Works Vested For xercising Power Of The

Telegraph Act –18853-------The Above Aithoriiaton Is Sibject To The Reqiirement Provisions

Of lectricity Act 200 And Riles Made There Under “.

153. ILL GAL & MISL ADING NOTIC S BY TRANSMISSION COMPANI S.

Froi 24-12-2003 onwards PGCIL sssued “Notice under Indsan Telegraph Act Of 1885. The notice

snforis the land owner stating that st ss a Governient Coipany eipowerient under Act 1885,

and lskely daiage to cropr trees and coipensation as per revenue departient assessient. The

notice dsd not speak of daiage to owners land value under towers and lsnes. It has not gsven

detasls of Rules under section 67. The notice dsd gsve no ofer for loss of land value under towers

and lsnes. Nor st snforied the land owner of hss rsghts under works of lscensee Rules 2006r2007 to

rasse objection. The owner ss not snforied about hss rsght to sle objection before the Collector

and revssson before the Regulatory Coiisssson.

Under Telegraph Authorsty under Telegraph Act 1885 enables Telegraph departient to construct

Telegraph Poles & Lsnes sn any prsvate land wsthout consent of the land owner. Utilszsng the

provsssons of 164, the saie thuib rules of Telegraph Act 1885, Section 10 ss adopted by PGCIL

and others. The land owners are densed coipensation on the preteit that, even afer

Transisssson lsnes and Towers pass over the lands, the ownershsp reiasns sn the naie of land

owner and that the fariers, can continue hss cultivation. Further PGCIL argues that the faiers

lands are not acqusred therefore need not pay coipensation. The fact that “Die to Hige Towers

and Lines with lectromagnetc Field, entre land valie Diminishes” is not taken into

consideraton since 200 , by the Transmission companies or District Magistrates and also High

Coirts.

16. ILL GALITY OF G.O.I. GAZ TT 200 X MPTING COMPANI S UND R S CTION 164 -

The Msnsstry of Power, Governient of Indsa, New Delhs, has delsberately conspsred and

connsved wsth Governient Transisssson Coipanses to bypass provsssons of Act 2003 and

Rules 2006, and Rules 2007 sn AP .It ss done due to the fact that Electrscsty Boards and the

Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa and State Transisssson Coipanses are ianaged by

adisnsstrative servsces of governients. The Msnsstry of Power sn order to bypass the Works

of Lscensee under, Section 67 and also Works of Lscensee Rules 2006, GSR. 217 (E) Dated 18-

04-2006, Msnsstry of Power GOI prescrsbed a Coiion Model Pro-Foria (Annexire -8) To

Get Eieiption By All Transisssson Coipanses. The procedure prescrsbed wsll enable

Transisssson coipanses get eieiption froi Works of lscensees Rules. The Msnsstry of Power

iade functionsng of Governient coipanses coifortable and ssiple. What the Governient

Coipanses needs to do Is Fsll up The Pro-foria - Publssh Scheie In 2 News Papers – Wast

For 2 Months – Send Leter And Eieiption, Under 164 Is Granted.

“The Pro-foria sssued by Under Secretary, Msnsstry of Power, G.O.I , to gsve powers of

Telegraph Authorsty under section 164 to Transisssson coipanses” ss sllegal and

Unconstitutional . Act 2003, Sections 164 ss as Follows Eiercsse of Powers of Telegraph

Authorsty - “In Certasn Cases”. Act 2003 wordsng “IN CERTAIN CASES” ss sndscative of specsal

or eiergency sstuations faced by a sndsvsdual transisssson coipany rlscensee, where sn the

lscensee cannot adopt procedure of Act 2003, Section 67, or works of lscensee rules 2006. The

words are sndscative of gsvsng telegraph authorsty powers only sparsngly – each project, based

on specssc sstuation. The applscant iust gsve reasonsng and csrcuistances to obtasn

authorsty. Instead, Msnsstry of Power prescrsbes a coiion applscation to be adopted for all

transisssson coipanses to clasi Telegraph Authorsty and there by eieiption to follow Rules.

By provsdsng Eieiption froi Works of Lscensee Rules” The Objective Of Specsal Act 2003 ss

bypassed and snvalsdated. The reasons for issuse and abuse of Section 164 By Msnsstry of

Power GOI, could be to deny legally entitled coipensation to sllsterate fariers who are

sgnorant and sncapable of understandsng the coiplscation of Act 2003 and Act 1885. Another

reason could be declarsng huge prosts as shown by the PGCIL and State Transisssson

coipanses whsch wsll dsrectly benest the adisnsstrators of PGCIL, and State Transisssson

coipanses.

PGCIL or any State Transisssson Coipany do not requsre eieiption under Section 164.

Coipanses have provssson for getng lscensee froi Regulatory Coiisssson. For PGCIL r

APTRANSCOrTSTRANSCO, a project proposal and a detasled feassbslsty reports sncludsng

survey route iap (Gsvsng detasls of survey nuiber, vsllage naie etc) wsll be conducted. The

project wsll peg iark location of Towers and lsnes whsch enables to assess daiage to the land

and can prepare estiiates of land coipensation. It has to get clearances froi Envsronient

Msnsstry and Fsnancsal Approvals. As PGCILrAPTRANSCO rTSTRANSCO, lsnes passes over

Raslways, National Hsgh ways, Irrsgation canals. They have to follow Rules 2006 and iust get

by wrsten perisssson froi these snstitutions as there ss no eieiption under Act 2003 (Rule 4

to Rule 12) and Section 164. The process for PGCIL and for other coipanses sipleienting

project work through contractor by tendersng and agreeients wsll also requsre tiie. Froi

the day, the project ss envssaged, till coipletion wsll take 5r6 years. In these csrcuistances

there ss no need for Msnsstry of Power GOI and State Governients confer Section 164 powers

of Telegraph Authorsty on Governient Transisssson Coipanses. The eieiption of rules,

2006 and 2007 are only for fariers (prsvate) landsn It ss assuied that the issuse and abuse

of Telegraph Act 1885 provsssons are only to avosd paysng coipensation to Fariers.

The POWER GRID and STATE Coipanses have sufcsent tiie to follow procedure as per Rules

2006r2007. They have sufcsent tiie to seek consent and snstiate negotiation for payient of

coipensation to land owner dependsng upon daiage, location, land area requsreient.. The

land owner can be persuaded to get consent by followsng procedure under Works of Lscensee

Rules 2006, Rules 3 (1) to gsve notice to land owners for consent. If the owner refuses PGCIL

ofer of coipensation, PGCIL has provssson under Rules 3(2) to get perisssson sn wrsting froi

Dsstract Collector. Collector proceedsngs under rules 2006 wsll enable land owners to sle

revssson for enhanced coipensation before the approprsate Coiisssson. But PGCIL froi

date of passsng the Act 2003, has not showed snclsnation to follow Rules Or Any Procedure or

any State sn regard to Prsvate Land owner Fariers.

GOI and State Governients has no provssson under Act 2003 to prescrsbe profaria to Coipanses

r lscensees. Specsal Act 2003 has declared to keep Governient away froi the sector.

Governients sn order to use section 164 iust declare the condstions for utilsssng Section 164.

Heresn only a press notiscation. 2 ionths tiie and a leter, to get eieiption under Telegraph

Authorsty. Thss ss a vsolation of Electrscsty Act 2003 provsssons. In fact st ss for thss purpose that

Rules 2006 are prescrsbed. The land owners who are iostly siall and iargsnal fariers cannot

understand the siplscation of lsnes and towers on thesr land and loss of sts value. Ssnce 2003

isllsons of fariers densed coipensation under the false preteit of Telegraph Authorsty.

17. FAILUR OF DISTRICT COLL CTOR TO PROT CT FAM RS PROP RTY RIGHTS.

The Dsstrsct Collector across the country have fasled to protect the snterest of fariers. The

Collectors whsle passsng orders or sssusng proceedsngs under Telegraph Act 1885 have fasled

to assess the daiage to land due to towers and lsnes. Section 10 (d) of Act 1885 reads as

follows: “sn the eiercsse of the powers conferred by thss section, the Telegraph Authorsty –“

SHALL DO AS LITTLE DAMAGE AS POSSIBLE ”, and, when st has eiercsse those powers sn

respect of any property other than that referred to sn clause ( c), “Shall Pay Full Coipensation

To All Persons Interested For Any Daiage Sustasned By Thei” by reason of the eiercsse of

those. Ssnce 2003 the Collectors were unable to assess the consequence of constructing Hsgh

Tensson Transisssson Towers and Lsnes on a siall psece fari landn Whether the Land

owner, be st a fariers or ressdential land or sndustrsal land wsll be daiaged and that the

owner wsll sustasn LOSSESS and that he should be coipensated. Thss ground realsty has

evaded the atention of Parlsaient whsle passsng that act 2003 and Adisnsstrators whsle

sipleienting the Act Provsssons, and Hsgh Courts whsle concurrsng wsth Telegraph Authorsty

(Act 1885 provsssons) Perhaps because the Fari lands are not as valuable as csty rurban

properties. The word URBAN PROPERTY vssa – vss Fariers Landsr Property was never gsven

equal siportance or preference by polscy iakers ssnce sndependence.

18. S CTION 164 – NCROACHING ON POW RS OF R GULATORY COMMISSIONS.

Due to sllegal usage of section 164 the powers conferred on central electrscsty regulatory

coiisssson (CERC) and State Regulatory Coiissssons are curtasled. Act 2003, Section 76,

confers vast powers on the Regulatory Coiissssons. The transisssson coipany has to

obtasn lscense froi Centralr State Regulatory Coiissssons The Coiissssons have provsded

rules for carrysng out works by the lscensees. The Coiissssons are gsven powers of revssson

of Collectors proceedsngs rorders. As seen above, sf the Collector’s orders are under

Telegraph Act 1885 the Coiissssons cannot revsew the orders of Collectors. Instead, Dsstrsct

Judge ss eipowered. Land owners are deprsved of revssson of Collectors orders. The fees sn

Dsstrsct Court has to be pasd for clasisng Coipensation. The Coiissssons have decsde

coipensation sn a tiie bound ianner. Whereas there ss no such tiie lsistation for Dsstrsct

Judge to award coipensation. The purpose of Specsal Act 2003 provsssons are lost due to

issuse of Section 164.

19. UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OF T L GRAPH ACT .18853.

The provsssons of Telegraph Act 1885, Vssa–a-Vss Electrscsty Act 2003 are snconssstent and not

applscable sn Deiocratic Indsa. They vsolate Indsan Constitutional provsssons of rule of

followsng procedure, rsght to property – now declared as huian rsght -, deprsvation of

property rsght and densal of substantive and sustentative rsght to property and other statues

as dsrected by Supreie Court of Indsa.

The 19th century Telegraph Act 1885 has followsng sllegalstiesr srregularsties sn coiparsson to

Act 2003. (s) The lscenses are centralszed under Msnsstry of Telegraph, Governient of Indsa,

whsch ss not functional. Where as sn Act 2003 lscenssng ss decentralssed and delegated to

Coiissssons whsch are sndependent judscsal authorsties. (ss) Act 1885 has no rules, whereas

Act 2003 has Rules wsth revssson provsssons. (sss) No procedure to be followed for establsshsng

telegraph lsnesrpoles, where as Towers and lsnes have specssc rules and condstionalsty. (sv)

Act 1885 has no provssson to land owners to protestr obstruct, where as Act 2003 has provsded

rsghts to land owners to refuse consent and provssson for revssson (v) In Telegraph, Act 1885

there ss no clarsty on authorsty to si coipensation . In Act 2003, Coipany can, by stself,

negotiate wsth land owner or seek Collectors sntervention. (vs) Act 1885 has no clarsty as who

and when and on what basss the coipensation ss sied for daiages, where as Act 2003 has

aiple provsssons for st. (vss) Act 1885 do not desne daiage to property, eicept coipensate

for loss of crops and Trees. The fact that Telegraph poles and lsnes are not dangerous to

huians or ansials or envsronient ss one of fact and needs no siagsnation. Where as

Electrscsty Towers and lsnes are hsghly dangerous to huians, Ansials and also to trees. It ss for

thss reason that condstionalsty are siposed by Governients on construction of towers and

lsnes over past 100 years. Shocksngly Approprsate Governients Have Equated Telephone

Polesr Lsnes Wsth That of Electrscsty Towers And Conductors, to Make Mockery of Rsght to

Property of Fariers (vsss) Act 1885 has no provssson for revssson and no scope for appeal.(si)

The 1885 Act ss out dated and ss srrelevant of the people of Indsa sn 21 st century . By adopting

Act 1885 provsssons GOI and State Governients has sabotaged the Act 2003 objectives. The

Telegraph Act 1885, has to be snvalsdated by the Honourable Hsgh Court for the reasons stated

above.

20. DISCRIMINATION OF S CTION 164. GOV RNM NTS AND CITIZ NS.

Approprsate Governients, GOI and States have Dsscrsisnated In Ussng Section 164 Between

Cstizens & Governient Institutions:-The Msnsstry of Power, GOI and State Governients,

issused and abused Section 164. The provssson of Telegraph Act 1885, Section 10 to 19 are

snvoked sn regard Works of Lscense Rules 2006 applscable to prsvate land owners and prsvate

land owners rbusldsngs. Rules 3 (1)(a) 3(1)(b) 3(2) and 3 (3) are applscable to only Cstizens –

(Fariers) –Prsvate Land Owners. Act 1885, Section 10 to 19 are not applscable to Works of

lscensee Rules 4 (1 to 7) 5, 6(1 to 7) 7 (1 to 7) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14, where sn Governients

snstitutions Raslways – Roads – Canals – Local Bodses etc. A readsng of Act 2003, (Part VIII )

Section 67 works of lscensees “WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY LICENSEES “has not iade any

dsscrsisnation between RaslwayrRoadsr ForestrWater ways and prsvate Land holders (CITIZENS

). However ussng Act 2003 Governients have dsscrsisnated between Property of Cstizens And

Governient Properties. Thss ss sllegal and unconstitutional. Hence Section 164 has to be

snvalsdated.

21. VIOLATION OF ACT 200 PROVISIONS BY TRANSMISSION COMPANI S.

Transisssson of Electrscsty ss a bussness. It ss done by coipanses sncludsng Governient

Coipanses who are regsstered under Coipanses Act. They get loans froi snancsal snstitution

sncludsng World Bank. Shares are iobslszed froi prsvate sndsvsduals and are traded sn stock

iarkets. PGCIL and State Transisssson coipanses declare prosts, pay dsvsdends, and pay

sncoie tai. Ssnce sndependent deiand for power was sncreassng due to sndustrsalszation,

Agrsculture, houssng and other purposes, Electrscsty Boards were establsshed sn 1960 to

siprove production and dsstrsbution. However the Boards under Governients were unable to

ieet the sncreassng deiand. Afer lsberalszation sn 1990’s Governient of Indsa enacted

Electrscsty Act 2003 to ieet the growsng needs of the country. Objectives and specsal features

of the Act 2003 was detasled sn above paras. Prsvate snvestients were encouraged, and

sndependent regulatory coiisssson were establsshed as arbstrator and regulator coipanses.

But Governients continued controls over Electrscsty coipanses by avosdsng to follow Rules

2006 thereby avosdsng to follow procedure and payient and coipensation.

22. D LIB RAT PLAN TO D NY PAYM NT OF COMP NSATION TO FARM RS.

An area, which was posing a challenge to Ministry of Power and State energy

Departments ofcers was that of transmission lines. The lines and towers are hige and

will damage the lands inderneath permanently. the act 200 has provided giidelines for

resolving the problems of getng consent of land owners and fxing compensaton.

aboit 86 % of land owners are small and marginal farmers. (Annexire- 10) . A tower or

line passing over the farm land redices the valie sibstantally and permanently. Afer

1990”s large nuiber of fari lands value has apprecsably siproved due to snfrastructure,

sndustry, houssng, urbanszation. Heresn afer enactient of act 2003, daiagsng land and

payient of coipensation ss seen as a snancsal lsabslsty by transisssson coipanses.

The siart polscy iakers of Msnsstry of Power, GOI and State ofcsals, who are part

adisnsstrative servsces, worksng sn Transisssson coipanses as Chsef Eiecutives itliied

obscire secton 164– to exercise of powers of telegraph aithority “In certain cases “

and Conveniently issied gaietes empowering PGCIL and all State Transmission

Companies with Powers inder Telegraph Aithority. Section 164 “In Certasn Cases” Is

Indscative Of Rare-And- Eiceptional Csrcuistances. But the Power Msnsstry ofcsals sn GOI

and Energy Departient States have convensently enabled PGCIL and State Transisssson

Coipanses to avosd Rules 2006r2007 and the condstion there of. Telegraph Act 1885 used

as eicuse to cheat isllsons of gullsble land ownerr fariers of coipensation. It ss sllegal

and unconstitutional to gsve powers under Telegraph Act 1885 eipowersng and

exemptng Government Companies to enter into Only Private/ Citiens Lands /

Propertes wsthout followsng Rules 2006 but not Governient properties.

Msnsstry of Power, GOI enabled Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Ltd. (PGCIL)on 24-12-

2003 (wsthsn 7 ionths of passsng of act 2003, dated 26th iay 2003) was gsven Telegraph

Authorsty vsde, Gazete Eitraordsnary No.1148 dated 24th Deceiber 2003. Under

Telegraph Act 1885, section. 10, to place Transisssson Towers and Lsnes wsthout consent

of land owners or payient of daiage to fariers. For 15 years PGCIL ss dosng works under

Act 1885 provsssons, so as to avosd Rules 2006.

2 . PROFIT MAKING TRANSMISSION COMPANI S AND TH IR ILL GAL ACTIVITI S.

Dursng 2013 – 14 to 2017-18 ( 5 years) Power Grsd has constructed 48,390 K. M. Lsnes. It

has utilssed 2,49,208 Hectors (Acers 6,15,792) afecting over 1 isllsons fariers rland

owners. Dursng that 5 Years persod, PGCIL declared prost of Rs. 31,184.2 Crores. It has

pasd dsvsdend of Rs. 7,851.36 Crores. It has iade provssson for Tai (Mat) and dsvsdend Tai

of Rs. 8,337.29 and 1,531.08 Crores (Annexire -11). But though the PGCIL, sn st report of

2017-18, dsdn’t iention (Annexire- 12) the coipensation pasd to Land ownerr fariers

for daiagsng of lands under Towers and Lsnes. Coipensation to fariers estiiated @ Rs.

10,00,000r- (Ten Lakhs) per Hectare the ss Rs. 24,679.90 Crores. The Power Grsd has

delsberately oisted to show the coipensation entitled by fariers.

Provsssons of section 164, Vsolates Rsght to Property, Article 300 A, of INDIAN Constitution.

It ss of coiion knowledge that the lands under towers and lsnes wsll get daiaged rForgo

value (DIMINUTION) due to electroiagnetic efects and other reasons. Electrscsty Act 1910

whsch prohsbsts construction all perianent structures underneath towers and lsnes. Even

gardens or plantations whsch grow hsgher than 10 feet are prohsbsted. Both the Act 2003

and Act 1885 have iade st oblsgatory to cause as lstle daiage as posssble and PAY FULL

COMPENSETION. The towers and lsnes by PGCIL and other have caused daiage to isllsons

of land owner fariers. The coipanses iust pay coipensation starting froi the day of

construction to all fariers.

Further the notices sssued by PGCIL and other transisssson coipanses under Telegraph

Act 1885 are vsolation of Rules 2006. Such notices are ss sllegal and issleadsng. Ssnce

passsng of Act 2003 and even afer fraisng of Rules 2006, PGCIL, a LICENSEE UNDER

Electrscsty ACT 2003, section 12, has been sssusng notices for all projects only under

Telegraph Act 1885. The contents of notices are as follows :-

“Power Grsd corporation of Indsa Ltd. (A Governient of Indsa Enterprsse)-----(address ),

Notice Under Indsan Telegraph ACT 1885 To,----Dated -----. Dear Ssr r Madai sn eiercsse

of powers vested wsth Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa ltd.( a Governient of Indsa

enterprsse, isnsstry of energy , departient of power,) .Under Part III of the INDIAN

TELEGRAPH ACT 1885, section 10 to 19 read wsth section 68 & 164 of Electrscsty Act 2003,

as aiended up to date, notice ss hereby gsven that 400 kv-----------lsne wsll go through your

Property Noted Under. Whsle due care wsll be taken to isnsisze the Daiage to standsng

crops and trees , certasn isnsiui unavosdable daiage ss lskely to take place dursng

construction r erection of the aforesasd Lsne. The trees so felled wsll be handed over to you

.The coipensation for the yseld of the trees so felled and crops daiaged wsll be pasd to

you as assessed by the Revenue Departient or any other coipetent Authorsty as iay be

decsded by the Revenue Departient.

The notices sssued by PGCIL and others accept the fact that st recognszes that LAND ss a

PROPERTY and that the LINES wsll cause daiage to the property ‘ ----line will go throigh

yoir property noted inder. While die care will taken to minimiie the damage to the

standing trees and crops, certain minimim inavoidable damage is likely to take place

diring constricton of the afore said line. Herein PGCIL accepts the fact that damage will

be caised. Bit PGCIL, a Company doing works in private land cannot by itself decide

“The xtent of Damage to Property nor It Can Decide the Compensaton”. Under Rules

2006 provsssons are iade for sisng and assesssng daiage and sisng coipensation under

Rules 2006, wheresn Collectors and Coiissssons are eipowered to setles coipensation

sssues.

PGCIL cannot sssue Notices under Act 1885. PGCIL ss lscensee under Act 2003 and provsded

wsth Rules 2006. The notice iust contasn provsssons of Act 2003, Rules 3.(1)(a ) seeksng

Consent of Land owner. It has to have detasls of tiie for reply, Under Rules 3 (1)(b). The

Notice iust provsde the land owner detasls of daiage to hss propertyrland. The notice dsd

not gsve an ofer of coipensation for the daiage to the property rland. The notices are

contrary to the provsssons under Act 2003 Section 12 and 14 where sn only an authorszed

person ss gsven lscense for transisssson of electrscsty and he has to follow rules.

24. UNAUTHORIS D GUID LIN S BY MINISTRY OF POW R IN 20153.

The Msnsstry Power, G. O.I has constituted a coiistee dated: 9r10-04-2015, under

Specsal Secretary to analyses the sssues related to Rsght of Way for laysng of transisssson

lsnes across the country and to suggest a unsfori iethodology for payient of

coipensation on thss count. The coiistees have provsded gusdelsnes on area daiaged

and sied coipensation of 85 % land value under Towers and 15% under lsnes (Rsght of

Way). The Report, Dt.15-10-2015 ss sent to Chsef secretarses of State, CMDs of State Power

Utilsties. Incsdentally the Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa ss ieiber of the Coiistee, but

as per ACTS 2013-15 they have to follow the rules.

The report by the coiistee Ref. 3r7r2015- Trans – Msnsstry of Power., GOI,Dated.15 th

October 2015 gsvsng gusdelsnes to Transisssson Lscensees /Companies/ is illegal and

contrary to the provisions of Act 200 . Thss specsal Act 2003 as detasled sn the objectives

and Reasons ss Intended to Keep Governient Away Froi all the Activsties of Power

Sector, eicept polscses. The fact that afer 1 years of passing of Act 200 and 9 years of

making Riles 2006 Ministry of Power, GOI consttited a commitee on 09/10 -04-20153 is

indicatve of deliberate atempt by Ministry of Power, GOI, and State Governments, of

their contnied control and interfering in the issies of Power Sector. The sssue of

Gazete sn –2003 gsvsng eieiption to PGCIL to evade Rules 2006 and conferrsng Telegraph

Authorsty (Under Act 1885) ss sndscative of Governients snterference sn the Power sector

afasrs by ofcsals. Therefore constituting Coiistee, by Msnsstry of Power for sisng

coipensation ss also sllegal, contrary to the objectives of Act 2003. The authorssation

under Telegraph Authorsty sn 2003 and gsvsng gusdelsnes for coipensation sn 2015 are

sllegal , and vsolation of Rsght to property Article 300 A. Therefore needs to cancelled, but

as per ACTS 2013-15 they have to follow the rules.

253. ILL GAL AND UNAUTHORIS D PROC DINGS BY COLL CTORS SINC 200 .

Froi 2003 TO 2018, proceedsngs sisng coipensation sssued by Dsstrsct Collectors sn the

State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are unauthorszed and vsolation of Rules 2006 and

2007 are sllegal. (Annexire-1 )The Transmission companies have claimed to work inder

telegraph act 18853, secton 17( ) it is the District Jidge who are aithorised. Therefore

all the proceedings /orders issied by the Collectors from 200 tll 2018 are with oit die

aithorisaton, hence invalid. In these Circimstances the Collectors be dsrected to re-

evaluate the daiages and sssue fresh proceedsngs as per Honourable Supreie Court of

Indsa Judgient of 2007 Kerala Electrscsty Board vs Levssha and coipensation under Land

Acqussstion Act 2013. Dsrection ss gsven that each land owner property be evaluated

separately based on sts location and future developient opportunsty as dsrected by the

Supreie Court of Indsa.

As of now proceedsngs by the Collectors are sssued under Telegraph Act 1885. They wsll

deny the land owners froi slsng revssson before Regulatory Coiisssson under Rule 2006

,Rule 13 (1) and 13 (2). Therefore the Proceedsngs sssued By Collectors sn The States of

Andhra Pradesh and Telangana froi 2003 be declared as sllegal and vsolation of Works of

Lscensee Rules 2006r2007.

26. MISGUIDING HIGH COURT BY FILING ILL GAL AFFIDAVITS :-

The Andhra Pradesh High Coirt have passed Jidgments ipholding right of transmission

company to enter into private land and constrict Towers and lines withoit obtaining

consent of the landowner. What Thesr Lordshsps fasled to percesve ss land ss a property. It ss

owned by fariers, who are cstizen of Indsa. And that land ss a huian rsght. And land can be

taken only as per law, procedure and coipensation. The contention of coipanses entersng

snto prsvate land wsthout followsng procedure – authorszation- coipensation- ss agasnst

prsncspals of Natural Justice, Vsolation of Constitutional Rsghts, Act 2003, Rules 2006 and ss

Crsie under crsisnal tress pass. The works of PGCIL and other transisssson coipanses are

aiply coipensated by Regulatory Coiissssons by way of WHEELING CAHRGES. Each

coipany ss declarsng huge prosts, dsvsdends and taies. PGCIL ss not dosng any a charstable

work. The eiployees sn coipanses are not dosng free servsces. Every one ss pasd hefy salarses.

In dealsng the sssue of Telegraph Authorsty (Act . 1885) the Honourable Hsgh Court dsd not take

snto conssderation that Electrscsty Act 2003 ss a Specsal Act. Here sn Governients are kept

away froi snterfersng sn Electrscsty, Generation-Transisssson–Dsstrsbution. The Act 2003 ss

iade to curtasl favourstisi by Governient coipanses, corrosson sn functionsng of

boardsrPGCILrState transisssson Coipanses, corruption and snefcsency of State Electrscsty

Boards. Act 2003 provsdes gusdelsnes to ionstor, regulate and dsscsplsne transisssson

coipanses. Regulatory Coiisssson are also eipowered to snvestigate snto srregularsties of

coipanses under Section126 to 130 and, take dsscsplsnary action under Section 135 to 152,

sncludsng levy sne and also cancel lscensees. Under Act 2003 and Rules 2006 a specssc

procedure ss prescrsbed to be followed by every lscensee whsle constructing towers and lsnes.

Under Rule 2006 Rule 3 (2 ) the Dsstrsct Collector & Magsstrate alone ss eipowered to si

coipensationr Rent or both and gsve perisssson sn wrsting to the lscensee. The Act 2003 and

Rules 2006 have iade provssson for revssson of the Collector &Magsstrate orders under Rule 3

(4) by the Coiissssons. Further thss Specsal Act 2003 has constituted Appellate Trsbunal for

Electrscsty to deal wsth all iaters of Electrscsty Production- Transisssson and Dsstrsbution as

snal authorsty. Bit appropriate governments by ising secton 164,have restored, the

government companies, with arrogance, to violate riles and misise the aithority, so as to

deprive payment of compensaton for damages caised to millions of farmers.

PGCIL and other coipanses sled issleadsng afdavsts sn Hsgh Courts (Annexire-14) clasisng,

that they are eipowered under Telegraph Act 1885, therefore need not get prsor consent

froi the land owner. Accordsngly avosded to sssue notices under Rules 2006. Even few notices

sssued under Act 1885, are Mssleadsngly Worded as sf the land owners are entitled for only

Crop rTrees Coipensation. The Damage Under Lines & Towers Is To Individial Land

Owner/Farmers Is Not Taken Into Consideraton By The Coirts. The contenton that inder

Secton 164 vested with Telegraph Aithority, Transmission Company can enter into private

land withoit consent, is violaton of Artcle 00A. Telegraph Aithority has no provision

getng consent and no provision for compensaton assessment and payment of

Compensaton. Herein Appropriate Governments have violated provisions of Secton 164 by

illegal aithorisaton and also provisions of new LA ACT companies inder Telegraph

Aithority. Therefore the companies are actng illegally. The decision by the Honoirable High

Coirts are contrary to Act 200 and Riles 2006 /2007. The decisions are violaton of

Consttitonal Rights.

Even inder Telegraph Act 18853, land ownersr faiers whose lands are daiaged due to towers

and lsnes are elsgsble for fill Compensaton. (Act 1885 Section10 (d)). The land ownerrfariers

are kept sn dark of elsgsbslsty of coipensation for land daiaged by the coipany. The

Collectors proceedsngs are sssued only under Telegraph Act 1885. There ss no provssson Under

Act 1885, where sn the Collectors have to si daiages. It ss only sn Act 2003, Rule 3(2) Collector

ss eipowered to si coipensation. That too, If The Land Owner Refuses to gsve Consent. That

too, on the Applscation by Transisssson Coipany For Perisssson To Carry Out Works, by

dsstrsct Collectors.

Section 164 of act 2003 was issused and delsberately isssnterpreted by transisssson

lscensees. Act 2003 section 67 has iade all provsssons (part vsss) works of lscensee. Under

section 67. (1) (a) to (d) gave provssson to carry out works sn raslways and streets etc . Under

section 67 (2) allowed governient to iake rules for carrysng out works sn governient and

prsvate lands. --Act 2003 ,under section 67 (3) gave dsrections to lscensee about daiages and

coipensation as follows “ a lscensee shall , sn eiercsse of any power conferred by or under thss

section and the rules iade there under , cause as lstle daiage, detrsient , snconvensence as

iay be , and shall iake full coipensation for any daiage, detrsient or snconvensence

caused by hsi or by any one eiployed by hsi “.

Act 2003, and under 67 (4) iade provssson for- coipensation :-where any dsference or

dsspute (sncludsng aiount of coipensation under sub -section(3) under thss section ,the

iater shall be deterisned by the approprsate coiissssons. Section 67( 5) eipowered

coiisssson to sipose penalty.--Electrscsty act 2003 a, specsal act to iake power sector

efcsent by establsshsng regulatory coiissssons at central and states. Eipowered

coiissssons to grant lscenses to transisssson –generation – dsstrsbution coipanses. The

coiisssson are authorszed to si charges for transisssson and generation. Coiissssons are

gsven qusz –judscsal power to si charges, arbstration aiong lscensees r coipanses and also

cancel lscensees. Part i section 76 establsshes regulatory coiissssons of central & state

electrscsty regulatory coiisssson. It has iade provssson for appellate trsbunal for electrscsty as

snal authorsty to deal power sector sssues. Under part ivs, section 158 ss created to arbstrate sn

order to hasten setleient of sssues.

27. POW R GRID CORPORATION GIVING MISL ADING INFORMATION To WORLD BANK:-

In regard to Payient of Coipensation to daiaged property rlands of fariers under

Towers and Lsnes the Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Ltd, has obtasned huge loans by

fraudulently, provsdsng sllegally and false snforiation to World Bank and International

snance Corporation. The World Bank condstionalsty of coipulsory rehabslstation of all

afected persons of projects, convensently ss isssnterpreted and provsded false

snforiation By Power Grsd .The Power Grsd sn thesr Project No.31419 Dated. 2nd March

2012 (Annexire -153) gave following declaraton”.

(W.B. Report- 532-1) Page 5. Last Para –Typscally, Power Grsd Acqusres About 15-40 Hectors

Of Land For Sub-Stations. The coipany prefers to acqusre of non avaslabslsty of

governient land, the coipany acqusres prsvate land (resulting sn snvoluntary setleient)

and at tiies also purchases through wsllsng seller-buyer transaction (s,e wsthout sn

voluntary resetleient). HOWEVER, Power Grid Does Not Acqiire Right of way (R.O.W) ,

as it is temporarily reqiired only for Laying, Occasionally for Operatng and Maintenance

Of Transmission Lines. RoW requsred along the route alsgnient ss 27i, 35i,52, 46r52

and 64-85 i wsde strsp of land for 132kv,220kv, 500kv, 400kv,double csrcust, 765 and 800

kv dc transisssson lsnes respectively. ===add

(532-2) Heresn the question arsses ss whsch actrlaw has gsven powers to Power Grsd to

sipose usage restrsction of fariers landn If st ss under Electrscsty Act 2003 as per Rules

2006, Rule 3 (1)(a), power grsd has to get consent froi land owner. Or sf farier refuses

consent, power grsd has to get perisssson sn wrsting froi Collector Under Rule 3(2).

Assuisng that power grsd ss acting as per Telegraph Act 1885 Under Secton 10 (d) Power

grid cannot caise sibstantal damage to farmers landed property. section 10, iandates,

shall pay fill Compensaton to all persons interested for any damage sistained by them

by reason of the exercise of those powers.

(532- ) The power grid in the project report 1419 to IFC has provided false, misleading

and illegal statement. Obtaining bank loans with false informaton is a criminal act. As

per Consttitonal provisions of India and directon by Sipreme Coirt of India, Right of

Way (R o W) caises total damage to farmers lands inder.

RoW. Therefore Power Grid mist pay compensaton for the damages caised. Power

Grid has not Provided Liability for Damages In Their Books of accoints for payment of

compensaton to land damage. The liability is not shown in the annial report. All banks

are given false accoints by power grid with infated profts. This has led to Share Valie

Increase and pay more Dividend and also Higher Income Tax. This is violaton of stock

exchange regilatons.

(532-4) the arrogance of Power Grid mpowering itself with aithority to impose

Conditanalites on farmers lands which are sibstantally damaged shoild not and cannot

be allowed to happen in democratc Indian repiblic, where in rile of law stll prevails.

(532-53) “R o W, For- Telegraphsc-Lsne, Whsle ownershsp of Land Vests Wsth the Land

Owners, the Land owner forgo the Rsght to (a) busld perianent structures anywhere

wsthsn the safety area of RoW (b) plant trees tall trees or undertake plantation activsties

wsth sn RoW, eicept sf ussng short hesght trees and (c) dsvert land under tower footing

froi past use. Where the land wsthsn R.o.W ss used for agrsculture, the land owners iay

continue to cultivate the land afer T-lsne been strung. However, where the land ss used for

tree plantation (frusting or of tiiber varsety), the land owners are requsred to plant dwarf

versty or low hesght trees wsthsn R.o.W. In requsrsng R.o.W, Power Grsd adheres to the host

country requsreients of prevalent Indsan telegraph act. The act provsdes for payient of

tree loss and crop loss coipensation, whsch the coipany provsdes “.

28. GUID LIN S BY SUPR M COURT FOR FIXING COMP NSATION :-

The Sipreme Coirt of India has given giidelines Methodology to Fix Compensaton

based on Potentality. Ref:- Sipreme Coirt of India in Case No.SC Ref. No. 148- 1537 /

2000 dated 07.1.2007 Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana.

Para No.5: For ascertasnsng the iarket value of the land, the potentialsty of the acqusred

land should also be taken snto conssderation. Potentialsty ieans capacsty or posssbslsty for

changsng or developsng snto a state of actualsty. The qieston whether a land has

potental valie or not is primarily one of the fact depending ipon its conditon iser to

which its pit or reasonably capable of being pit and proximity to residental,

commercial or indistrial areas on insttitons. The existng amenites like, water,

electricity, possibility of their firther extension, whether near aboit town is developing

or prospects of development has to be taken into consideraton. Additonal Ref-Collector

Rasgarh vs. Hars Ssngh Thakur AIR 1979 472, Raghuvansh Narayan vs. State of UP AIR 1969,

SC 465 and Adisnsstrator General West Bengal vs. Collector Varanass AIR 1988 Sc. 943. It

has been held sn Kaushalya Devs Vs. LAO Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 Suresh Kuiar Vs. B

I Trust AIR 1980 SC 1222 That faslsng to conssder potential value of the acqusred land ss a

vsolation of prsncspal natural justice.

29. IMPORTANC OF FOLLOWING PROC DUR IN D MOCRACY. SC DIR CTIONS:-

Power Grsd and other transisssson coipanses are not following any procedire leading

to cheatng of famers by them. Importance Of Following Procedire In Democracy :

1) .SC. AIR.1987. SC 2386. Ranjst Thakur vs Unson of Indsa. (2)Unsted States. Supreie

Court 1942 (318) Unsted State 332.

“The observatons made therein are to the efect that the die observance of the

prescribed procedire is a giarantee against arbitrary exercise of power. The procediral

safe giards shoild be commensirate with the sweep of the powers. The wider the

power the greater the need for restraint in its exercise and correspondingly, more liberal

the constricton of the procediral safegiards envisaged by the statite.

“The History of Liberty” sasd Frank Further J., the learned judge, “Has Largely Been the

History of Observance Of Procediral Safe Giards ” (1942) 318 Unsted States 332.

I subist Ref :C.W.J.C. NO. 6993 of 2010 Judgient on 9th February 2011 Patna Hsgh Court.

Justice Navaneeths Prasad Ssngh- Between Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Vs. Rai

Naresh Ssngh.

( Judgient. Para 13): - We are isndful of the vstal publsc snterest snvolved sn the present

iater perhaps wsth all Indsa raisscations. In vsew of the doctrsne of siisnent doiasn

read wsth rule 3 of the rules the applscant has the power to snstall transisssson towers on

the lands of respondent nuibers 1 & 2 sn publsc snterest, afer followsng the procedure

prescrsbed and payient. We are sn thss connection reisnded of judgient of the Supreie

Court sn the case of Ranjst Thakur Vs Unson of Indsa, AIR 1987 23876 wheresn the

siportance of followsng prescrsbed procedure has been eiphasszed. The observance

iade theresn are to the efect that due observance of the prescrsbed procedure ss

guarantee agasnst arbstrary eiercsse and correspondsngly iore lsberal the construction of

the procedural safeguard envssaged by the statute”. Thss cursously evolved ruled

adisnsstrative law ss now srily establsshed and sf, I iay add, rsghtly so he that take the

procedural slot. The hsstory of lsberty judge has largely besng the hsstory of observance of

procedural safeguards (1992) 318 US 332. We are afraid the non-compliance of the

mandate of S-1 0 is an infrmity which goes to the root of the jirisdicton.

0. RIGHT TO R SIST PRIOR INTIMATION IS SS NTIAL.

(i) Gijarat High Coirt:- Right To Resist Or Obstrict Prior Intmaton Is ssental. Case

:-Gujarat Hsgh Court Case No: CsvslrSCAr1834r2011. Dated: 29.08.2013- Dslsp Ssngh

Chouhan Vs Gujarat Vajra Nsgai (Transisssson Coipany)

“Whsle eiercsssng the power as that of the Telegraph Authorsty under the Telegraph Act,

on account of the notiscation under Section 164 of the Act consent of the owner or

occupser iay not be requsred, bit some reasonable prior intmaton shoild be given to

the owner or occipier, enabling him to exercise his right to resist or obstrict, may be on

the groind that the principles of least damage is not followed or may be on the groind

that appropriate compensaton is not paid or otherwise. The moment there is resistance

or obstricton by the owner or occipier, the licensee has to stop his work, sf any, or to

wsthdraw froi the property of the owner or the occupser. Thereafer, the licensee may

approach before the District Magistrate for permission to lay down the line and the

District Magistrate in exercise of the power may grant permission, bit while grantng

permission, he may be reqiired to examine the observance of the principles of litle

damage as possible and thereafer the perisssson iay be granted.

1. DISTINCTION -B TW N 19TH C NTURY T L GRAPH ACT. 18853 AND 21ST C NTURY

lectricity Act. Ref. 200 .28.1. Gujarat Hsgh Court Csvsl.rSCAr18334r2011, 29-08-2013, Dslsp

Ssngh Chouhan vs Gujrat Ujra Nsgai.

The aforesasd aspect woild lead is to examine the diference and distncton in the mode of

exercise of the power inder Secton 67 of the Act read with the Riles of 2006 and the

exercise of power inder the Telegraph Act when it is so conferred by the Notfcaton inder

Secton 164 of the Act by the appropriate Government. The distncton can be carved oit as

inder:

If the power ss to be eiercssed under Section 67 of the Act read wsth the Rules of 2006 at the

frst instance consent of the owner or the occipier is the reqiirement for exercise of

power, whereas if the Telegraph Aithority has to exercise the power the consent of the

owner or occipier is not reqiired for exercise of power, but “wsth the clarsscation that the

owner or occupser of the property has rsght to ressst or obstruct when the work ss undertaken

by the lscensee “.

There is a thin line of distncton between getng consent of the owner or occipier and

enabling power of the owner or occipier to resist or obstrict any work. Consent would

presuppose an action afer ieeting of two isnds and arrsvsng at an unansious decssson,

whereas sn a case where the owner or the occipier has right to resist or obstrict woild

mean that one (licensee) may proceed to indertake the work by intmaton to the owner or

occipier and if there is no resistance or obstricton, the work may be started or proceeded

with intl the same is resisted or obstricted. ‘The moment their is resistance or obstricton

by the owner or occipier, the aithority of license to indertake the work woild end.

2. D V LOPM NT OF SOCI TY- 19th C NTURY & 21ST C NTURY: Case: Gujarat Hsgh Court No:

XCIVILrscar18334r2011 Dated 29-08-2013:-

The Hsgh Court has observed as follows .As per section 10(d) there are two iandatory

requsreients. (1) Telegraph Aithority shall do as litle damage as possible; and (2) to pay

fill compensaton to all persons interested for the damage sistained by them by the

reasons of the exercise of those powers. The neit aspect ss what wsll be the scope of as lstle

daiage as posssble and what wsll be the scope of full coipensation. Before we address on

the sasd aspect, st wsll not be out of place to iention that Indsan Telegraph Act caie to be

enacted sn the year 1885, iuch prsor to not only sndependence of our country, but could

rather be sasd as the law enacted sn 19th century. There are far iore developient not only sn

the rsghts of the cstizens, but also sn the oblsgation and the way of dsscharge of duty by the

authorsty and iore particularly, afer the Constitution has coie snto force sn the Country.

Further, there are far iore developient of scsence, the iethod and way of enjoyient of the

properties by the cstizens and so ss for varsous scsentisc iethod developed for laysng down

the lsnes. Telegraph lsnes are by now outdated on the date when we are to pronounce the

judgient and they are to be substituted for the electrscsty lsnes. Therefore, we need to

partcilarly Secton 164 of the Act are the laws of 21st Centiry. At the srst brush we iay say

that by the laws of 21st Century s.e. Electrscsty Act, the power so conferred by the Act of 19 th

Century are continued. If the Act read wsth the Rules 2006 are conssdered, st does requsre the

consent of the owner and also sn absence of the consent, sf the Polsce Coiissssoner or

Magsstrate ss to grant perisssson ssiultaneous assessient of the coipensation and the

payient thereof subject to revision power by appropriate Commission, whereas the

iechanssi so provsded under the Telegraph ACT ss dsferent, but whsle snterpreting the

provsssons of the Telegraph Act for laysng down of the lsnes of electrscsty we need to keep in

mind the rights and obligatons so prevailing in 21st Centiry and it cannot be as that of 19th

Centiry when the positon of the Cointry, incliding the development in the society and the

science was far behind.

. A T L GRAPH AUTHORITY CANNOT B CONF RR D WITH POW RS UND R L CTRICITY

ACT. 1970:11-09-1966- SC.AIR.1970 SC 491 (1970) SCC 8531 -

S.C. has iade the followsng observation .The State Governient conferred upon the

Petitioner powers for placsng electrsc supply lsnes applsances and apparatus for the

transisssson and dsstrsbution of the energy by st wsthsn the area of sts supply whsch the

telegraph authorsty possesses under Section 10 to 18 and 19A of the Indsan Telegraph Act

wsth respect to placsng of telegraph lsnes and posts Section 51 ierely eipowers the State

Governient to confer on the lscensee certasn powers whsch can be eiercssed by a

telegraph authorsty under the Indsan Telegraph Act. It does not by reference incorporate

in to the Indian lectricity Act all the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act . Merely

becaise some of the powers conferred inder the Indian Telegraph Act on the telegraph

aithority coild be conferred on a licensee inder the Indian Telegraph Act, it does not

follow that all the rights and liabilites of a licensee inder the Indian lectricity Act are

governed by the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act.

4. APPLICABILITY OF TH PROVISIONS OF TH RIGHT TO FAIR COMP NSATION AND

TRANSPAR NCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, R HABILITATION AND R S TTL M NT ACT, 201 .

The changes sn the provsssons of the New Land Acqussstion Act was sntended to facslstate fariers

to get beter coipensation, rehabslstation and resetleient benests sn lseu of land besng

coipulsorsly acqusred by the approprsate Governient and to reiove the procedural dsfculties

sn the acqussstion of lands requsred for siportant national projects. In vsew of the urgency, these

aiendients were brought about by an Ordsnance on 31.12.2014. Subsequently on 10.3.2015

Lok Sabha passed the Aiendient Bsll to replace thss Ordsnance. The Aiendient Bsll passed by

the Lok Sabha sncludes soie further changes to the Ordsnance whsch are as follows:

Compensaton as per Schedile extended to 1 Acts:

Coipensation sn accordance wsth the Fsrst Schedule and rehabslstation and resetleient specssed

sn the Second and Thsrd Schedules of the Act are eitended to the thsrteen Acts ientioned sn the

Fourth Schedule of the New Land Acqussstion Act naiely-

(1) to (11) iii

(12) The Electrscsty

Act, 2003;

(13) iii

Nesther of the respondents could proceed blsnd folded sn all these iaters.

The Act of 2003 and iore particularly Section 164 of the Act are laws of 21st Century. If the Act

of 21st century provsdsng the iethod and iechanssi under Section 67 of the Act read wsth the

Rules of 2006 are conssdered, st does requsre the consent of the owner and also sn absence of

consent, sf the Polsce Coiissssoner or the Magsstrate ss to grant perisssson ssiultaneous

assessient of the coipensation and the payient thereof subject to provsssonal power by

approprsate Coiisssson, whereas the iechanssi so provsded under the Telegraph Act ss

dsferent, but whsle snterpreting the provsssons of the Telegraph Act for eiercsse of the power by

any person as that of the Telegraph act for laysng down of the lsnes of electrscsty st needs to be

kept sn isnd the rsghts and oblsgations so prevaslsng sn 21st Century and st cannot be as that of

19th Century when the posstion of the country, sncludsng the developient sn the socsety and the

scsence was far behsnd.

It ought to have been conssdered that, sn vsew of the Harionszed Lsst of Infrastructure sub-

sectors notised on 27 March, 2012 by Departient of Econoisc Afasrs (Infrastructure Section),

Msnsstry of Fsnance, Govt. of Indsa, provsssons of Rsght to Fasr Coipensation Act has been iade

applscable to Transisssson works. (Annexire - 16) .

53. PRAY R. (Petton to the High Coirt )

s) It ss prayed that all land owner fariers and others sn The States of -------- be coipensated

by the Power Grsd Corporation of Indsa Ltd and --------State Transisssson coipany and

other Transisssson coipanses for sllegal and unauthorssed construction of Hsgh Tensson

Transisssson Towers and Lsnes sn thesr lands and consequent daiage to thesr property,

losses for crops and equspient froi the date of passsng of Electrscsty Act 2003.

ss) It ss prayed that the coipensation be awarded wsth snterest and solarsui.

sss) It ss prayed that the coipensation to be sied as per schedule eitended to Land

Acqussstion Act 2013.

sv) It ss prayed as of now the Honourable Hsgh Court to gsve dsrections to all the Chsef

Secretarses, and Power secretarses, all Dsstrsct Collectors and Transisssson Coipanses sn

the states of -----------to follow Rules 2006 sssued by Msnsstry of Power GOI and Rules

sssued state Governient.

v) It ss prayed that the Honourable Hsgh Court to sssue dsrections to the Dsrector General of

Polsce sn the State so as to gsve dsrections to Polsce not to support sllegal activsties of the

transisssson coipanses.

vs) It ss prayed that the Honourable Hsgh Court sssue dsrections to the concerned

Governients to cancel section 164 of Act 2003, as Section 164 vsolates property rsghtn

Huian rsght of Indsan cstizens and also ss unconstitutional and vsolates Act 2003 provsssons

of varsous Sections as stated the petition.

vss) It ss prayed that the Honourable Hsgh Court to pass such other orders as deei st and

proper.

Place:------

Date: --------- Petitioner

NOT :- 1. Any farier afected by transisssson coipanses for daiage to thesr propertyr

Agrsculture land iay use the above detasls by iaksng necessary correction.

2. Please versfy the Court Judgients before ussng thei.

3. I wsll apprecsate to recesve acknowledgsng ussng the detasls. E-iasl. chengal.p@gaisl.coi