Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar Single Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma, dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation for damages allegedly caused by the installation of a high-tension transmission line. The Court held that compensation claims involving disputed facts must be established through appropriate civil proceedings and not under writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate M.M. Khan, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a series of reliefs against the Union of India and others, represented by Advocate M.A. Beigh. The petitioner claimed ownership of property in Khasra No. 603, Village Gingal, Tehsil Uri, measuring 5 Marlas, upon which he had constructed a residential house. He asserted that the installation of a high-tension transmission line over his house had rendered it uninhabitable.

Also Read: Courts Are Not As Fragile As Flowers To Wither And Wilt | Supreme Court Declines Contempt Action Over Scandalous Remarks But Warns That Hate Speech Must Be Dealt With An Iron Hand

The petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. "Writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to assess and pay compensation of Rs. 20.00 lacs for the residential house of the petitioner located in Village Gingal, which has been rendered uninhabitable due to the installation of a High-Tension Transmission Line at Uri, Wagoora."

2. "Writ of Mandamus, the respondents be directed to pay damages of Rs. 5.00 lacs to the petitioner for mental distress, agony and torture at the hands of respondents."

3. "Writ of Mandamus, the respondent be further directed to pay compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum to the petitioner for the wrongful retention of compensation since 1996 till date."

According to the petitioner, the construction of a tower for laying the transmission lines occurred directly over his residential house. Although a civil suit had initially been filed to restrain the respondents, the petitioner withdrew it based on assurances from the respondents regarding compensation for damages. Multiple representations were allegedly made to the authorities, but no relief was provided. The petitioner also claimed discriminatory treatment, alleging that other similarly affected individuals had received compensation as evidenced through RTI documents submitted before the Court.

The respondents countered the claims, submitting that the transmission line work had been completed in 2010-2011, and the line was charged in 2011. They argued that Tower No. 35 was constructed half a kilometre away from the petitioner’s house, which was situated at the bottom of a hill, and denied any damage to his property. They further asserted that any assurance given in civil court was contingent upon the petitioner’s entitlement being duly established.

The respondents placed reliance on a Division Bench decision in Ranvijay Chand and another Vs. State of J&K and others, reported in 2005 (1) JKJ (236), which held that:

"...it cannot be interfered notwithstanding that the transmission lines are being spread over the field of the individuals, subject to their right to claim damages, if approved. However, with regard to the aerial right of way, it continues to be with the State and the individual owners cannot claim compensation in respect thereof."

Justice Sindhu Sharma recorded that the petitioner’s claim for compensation was not maintainable under writ jurisdiction due to the existence of disputed questions of fact. The Court quoted the precedent in Ranvijay Chand (supra), affirming that the aerial right of way for transmission lines remains with the State, and individual landowners cannot assert legal or constitutional rights against such installations.

Further, the Court observed: "It is well settled that claims for damages, including those relating to a residential house and fruit-bearing trees, are disputed questions of fact, which can only be proved by leading evidence."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Quashes AY 2013-14 Reassessment | Notice Held Time-Barred As Surviving Period Expired On 23 July 2022

Relying on additional precedents such as Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. State of J&K and others and decisions from the Supreme Court in Arya Vyasa Sabha v. The Commissioner, Himmat Singh vs. State of Haryana, and Food Corporation of India vs. Harmesh Chand, the Court reaffirmed that: "The disputed facts cannot be decided in a writ petition and the said issue is no longer res integra."

The Court finally held that the petitioner must seek redressal through a competent civil court, where evidentiary procedures can properly adjudicate the disputed claims.

The Court concluded: "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M.M. Khan, Advocate

For the Respondents: M.A. Beigh, Advocate

Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Lodhi vs. Union of India and Others

Case Number: OWP No. 1104/2016

Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma

[Read/Download order]