# Ved Prakash & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 130
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-18
- **Case number:** P.I.L. No. 2020 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ved-prakash-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47612
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226PIL-petitiner prayed for diversion of the
power line/high tension memorandum
wire between the abadi area of the village
so
that
the
abadi
area,
schools,
agricultural fields may be unaffectedalignment is not decided by individual but
the same is a result of collective efforts of
experts-A decision to mark route for
electric line is highly specialized and
technical. the route may be running into
hundreds of kilometers passing through
land owned by different owners and it
may not be possible to offer hearing to all
the owners, as only right to use smallsmall portions of land on which towers or
occupiers of the land on the route to
suggest alternates. if that process is
adopted,
the
project
will
never
be
completed as any such decision would be
subject to judicial review and the State
and its functionaries may not be able to
provide infrastructure. only right available
to landowners is to receive compensation
and damages-Application filed by the
corporation deserves to be allowed.(Para
1 to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have gone down and now a litigants can go
to any extent to mislead the court. They
have no respect for the truth. The principle
has been evolved to meet the challenge
posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it
is well settled that a litigant, who attempts
to pollute the stream of justice or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with
tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final. Suppression of material
facts from the court of law, is actually
playing fraud with the court. The maxim
supressio
veri,
expression
faisi,
i.e.
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the
expression of falsehood, gets attracted.

14. Further, perusal of the order dated
January 18, 2022 passed in Criminal WritPIL No. 1 of 2022 shows that the prayer
made therein was for a direction to the
authorities to investigate the violation of
law in allotment of fair price shop and
charges of corruption against the officials
involved. The relief prayed herein is
similar.

15. For the reasons mentioned above,
in our opinion, the present petition deserves
to be dismissed with cost of ?25,000/-.

16. Ordered accordingly.

17. The amount of cost shall be
deposited by the petitioner with U.P. State
Legal Services Authority, Lucknow within
a period of four weeks from today.
----------
(2022)06ILR A130
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
P.I.L. No. 2020 of 2021

Ved Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajay Mishra, Sri Krishna Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pankaj Shukla

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226PIL-petitiner prayed for diversion of the
power line/high tension memorandum
wire between the abadi area of the village
so
that
the
abadi
area,
schools,
agricultural fields may be unaffectedalignment is not decided by individual but
the same is a result of collective efforts of
experts-A decision to mark route for
electric line is highly specialized and
technical. the route may be running into
hundreds of kilometers passing through
land owned by different owners and it
may not be possible to offer hearing to all
the owners, as only right to use smallsmall portions of land on which towers or
occupiers of the land on the route to
suggest alternates. if that process is
adopted,
the
project
will
never
be
completed as any such decision would be
subject to judicial review and the State
and its functionaries may not be able to
provide infrastructure. only right available
to landowners is to receive compensation
and damages-Application filed by the
corporation deserves to be allowed.(Para
1 to 15)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Vivek Brajendra Singh Vs St. of Govt. of
Mah. & ors. (2012) 4 BCR 116

2. G.V.S Rama Krishna & ors. Vs A.P Transco &
ors. (2009) AIR AP 158

3. Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd Vs Century
Textiles & Ind. Ltd & ors. (2017) AIR SC
1141
6 All. Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
131
4. Gulam Ahmad Bhat Vs U.O.I. & ors. , OWP
No 1950 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. By means of the instant Public
Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed
for following, amongst other, relief:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No. 3 not to raise the
construction of line tower for running the
electricity
wire
in
Village
Bhamai
Husamganj, Post Deewanganj, District
Prayagraj between the abadi side and
further restrained respondents not to raise
any construction from the land of the land
owners without complying the provisions
provided
under
The
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Transmission Corporation Limited, i.e., the
respondent no. 3, is laying high tension
memorandum wire between the abadi side
of the village, for which various electricity
supply towers are being constructed. He
further submits that area from where the
high tension memorandum wire is going to
be laid, there exists schools, agricultural
fields and village abadi. Therefore, the
same may not be allowed to be laid. In
other words, he wants that the said high
tension line may be diverted or the
alignment may be altered so that the abadi
area, schools, agricultural fields, etc. may
be unaffected.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submits that the relief claimed
by the petitioner cannot be granted as the
alignment of the high tension line cannot be
changed to benefit some of the petitioners
as alignment is not decided by any
individual; rather, the same is a result of
collective efforts of experts. He further
submits that it is a prestigious project for
the State to transmit power and the entire
exercise has been done after due approval
from the competent authorities. Before
planning to erect the transmission line, not
only the topography of the area, but even
the soil is also tested to ensure that the
same can sustain the load. He prays for
dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

5. The facts, which are not in dispute,
are that the Corporation got permission to lay
high tension transmission line. The lines are
to be drawn, which pass through the land of
Village - Bhamai Husamganj, Post -
Deewanganj, District - Prayagraj. The plea
raised in the petition is that alignment of the
Transmission Line be changed so that the
schools, agricultural fields, abadi, etc. are
saved. The Transmission Line is proposed in
a straight line passing through the land of the
village in question, change of alignment of
which may not be possible, considering the
fact that it is the job of the experts as to which
route is to be adopted for erection of high
power Transmission Lines. The petitioners
have not challenged any notification, which
empowers the respondents to lay the
transmission line, as the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the
Act') empowers the State to issue notification
mentioning details of the area through which
transmission line will pass through.

6. Section 10 of the Act authorizes the
authority to place and maintain a telegraph
line under, over, along, or across, and posts
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in or upon any immovable property.
Proviso (b) to Section 10 of the Act makes
it abundantly clear that while erecting lines,
the authority does not acquire any right
other than that of user in the property,
which
is
subject
to
payment
of
compensation. Further argument of the
counsel for the petitioners that neither any
information nor opportunity was granted to
file objection before approval/notification
notifying
the
laying
of
the
power
transmission line so that a detailed
objection could be filed requesting beneath
the
alignment,
there
are
schools,
agricultural fields, abadi, etc. is totally
misconceived.

7. As has been observed in a judgment
by the Division bench of Nagpur Bench of
Bombay High Court in Vivek Brajendra
Singh
v.
State
of
Government
of
Maharashtra and ors 2012 (4) BCR 116,
there is no hearing contemplated against
laying of lines. A decision to mark route for
laying electric line is a highly specialized
and technical. The route may be running
into
hundreds
of
kilometers
passing
through land owned by different owners
and it may not be possible to offer hearing
to all the owners, as only right to use smallsmall of portions of land on which towers
or occupiers of the land on the route to
suggest alternates. If that process is
adopted,
the
project
will
never
be
completed as any such decision would be
subject to judicial review and the State or
its functionaries may not be able to provide
infrastructure. Andhra Pradesh High Court
in G.V.S. Rama Krishna and ors v. A. P.
Transco and others, AIR 2009 AP 158,
clearly laid down that the only right
available to landowners is to receive
compensation
and
damages,
if
any,
sustained by them, as neither there is
acquisition of land nor there is any need of
consent of the owners or occupiers. Even in
Power
Grid
Corporation
of
India
Limited v. Century Textiles & Industries
Limited and others, AIR 2017 SC, 1141,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court had not
interfered in the process of laying of power
lines.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has
time and again opined that projects of
public importance should not be halted as
the same would be against the larger public
interest and the constitutional courts should
weigh public interest vis-à-vis private
interest while exercising its discretion.

9. In Gulam Ahmad Bhat Vs. Union
of India and others (OWP No. 1950 of
2018, dated 20.12.2018), the Jammu &
Kashmir High Court at Srinagar, while
holding that transmission of line and
alignment cannot be changed at the behest
of some of the petitioners, has observed as
under:-

"11. The facts which are not in dispute
are that the Corporation got permission to
lay 220 KV D/C Kishenganga to T-point at
Amargarh and 220 KV D/C Amargarh
(Sopore) and from Amargarh (Sopore) to
Wagoora (Budgam) under the Scheme
known as Transmission System Associated
with Kishenganga HEP for transmission of
power from the upcoming 330 MW HEP of
NHPC. As stated by the learned counsel for
the Corporation, entire work is over. Only
the lines are to be drawn to connect Tower
No. 40/6 and 41/0, which pass through the
land owned by the petitioner. Beneath the
alignment, there is a constructed house of
the petitioner. The petitioner claims that it
was
constructed
before
issuance
of
notification dated 18.06.2015 proposing
erection of Transmission Line whereas the
stand of the Corporation is that house was
6 All. Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
133
constructed after the notification had
already been iss12. Section 10 of the Act
authorizes the authority to place and
maintain a telegraph line under, over,
along, or across, and posts in or upon any
immovable property. Proviso (b) to Section
10 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that
while erecting lines, the authority does not
acquire any right other than that of user in
the property, which is subject to payment of
compensation. In the case in hand as well,
notification dated 18.06.2015 has been
issued for laying transmission line on the
route as mentioned hereinued. The plea
raised in the writ petition is that alignment
of the Transmission Line be changed so
that the house of the petitioner is saved.
There is a site plan produced on record by
the petitioner himself which shows that the
Transmission Line is proposed in a straight
line passing through the land of the
petitioner. Change of alignment of which
may not be possible at this stage,
considering the fact that Towers on both
sides have been erected and further it is the
job of the experts especially in hilly terrains
as to which route is to be adopted for
erection of high power Transmission Lines.

12. Section 10 of the Act authorizes
the authority to place and maintain a
telegraph line under, over, along, or across,
and posts in or upon any immovable
property. Proviso (b) to Section 10 of the
Act makes it abundantly clear that while
erecting lines, the authority does not
acquire any right other than that of user in
the property, which is subject to payment of
compensation. In the case in hand as well,
notification dated 18.06.2015 has been
issued for laying transmission line on the
route as mentioned herein.

13. As has been observed in a
judgment by the Division bench of
Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in
Vivek Brajendra Singh v. State of
Government of Maharashtra and ors 2012
(4) BCR 116, there is no hearing
contemplated against laying of lines. A
decision to mark route for laying electric
line is a highly specialized and technical.
The route may be running into hundreds
of kilometers passing through land owned
by different owners and it may not be
possible to offer hearing to all the
owners, as only right to use small-small
of portions of land on which towers or
occupiers of the land on the route to
suggest alternates. If that process is
adopted, the project will never be
completed as any such decision would be
subject to judicial review and the State or
its functionaries may not be avle to
provide infrastructure. Andhra Pradesh
High Court in G.V.S. Rama Krishna and
ors v. A. P. Transco and others, AIR 2009
AP 158, clearly laid down that the only
right available to landowners is to receive
compensation and damages, if any,
sustained by them, as neither there is
acquisition of land nor there is any need
of consent of the owners or occupiers.
Even in Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited v. Century Textiles & Industries
Limited and others, AIR 2017 SC, 1141
Hon'ble the Supreme Court had not
interfered in the process of laying of
power lines.

14. For the reasons stated above, in
my opinion the application filed by the
Corporation deserves to be allowed. The
application is, accordingly, allowed. The
interim stay granted on 15.10.2018 is
vacated.

10. For the reasons stated above and
the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, in our opinion, the present PIL is
devoid of merit. The same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)06ILR A134
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 23 of 2022

Smt. Kaisar Jahan & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
Pashupati Colonizer Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Amit Krishna, Sri Tejasvi Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Hanuman Kinkar, Sri Shashi Kumar Dwivedi,
Sri Atul Dayal

(A) Civil Law - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act , 1972 - Section 30 - The post office
Act,1898 - section 27 - gives rise to a
presumption that service of notice has
been effected when it is sent to the
correct address by registered post , Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - enables
the Court to presume that in the common
course
of
natural
events,
the
communication would have been delivered
at the address of the addressee , Code of
Civil Procedure ,1908 - Order XV Rule 5 -
Striking off defence for failure to deposit
admitted rent, etc. (Para -24 )

Revisionists-defendants challenged
judgment
and decree - on four grounds - maintainability
of suit, rate of rent, no proper notice and
communication of sale deed.(Para -3 )

(B) Civil Law - maintainability of suit -
Court record findings only on the issues
which are part of the pleadings - on which
parties
are
contesting
the
case
-
Resolution of Board of Director has been
passed or not, is the question of fact and
can only be replied if it is raised in the
pleadings - held - without pleadings
revisionists-defendants
cannot
take
benefit of maintainability of the SCC suit.
(Para - 19)

(C) Civil Law - rate of rent - acceptance of
change of landlordship and continuation
of tenancy with new landlord - impliedly
said
that
applicant
was
having
full
knowledge about the enhanced rent at the
rate of Rs. 6600/- per month - held - It is
nothing, but an attempt to any how
continue the tenancy by getting the SCC
suit prolonged or dismissed on a frivolous
ground. (Para -22)

(D) Civil Law - service of notice and
examination of postman in court - held -
once the requirement of Section 27 of the
Post Office Act has been complied with
and endorsement has been made by the
postman with regard to service of notice -
there is no requirement to examine the
postman in Court. (Para -25)

(E) Civil Law - Improper communication of
sale deed - notice properly served -
revisionists-defendants accepted change
of landlordship in their written statements
- payment of Rs. 32/- per month under
Section 30 Act - clearly shows that they
are having full knowledge of change of
landlordship after receiving the notice -
admitted
the
same
in
their
written
statements - held - Once they have
knowledge of change of landlordship, that
cannot be without having knowledge of
sale deed.(Para -26)

HELD:-No good ground/reason for interference in
the impugned judgement and order. (Para - 27)

S.C.C. Revision dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. M/s. Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. & anr.
Vs P.K. Prathapan & ors., 2005 0 AIR (SC)

2. Shri Saurav Jain & anr. Vs M/s A.B.P. Design
& anr. , Civil Appeal No. 4448 of 2021

3. Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs Avinash Maruthi
Pawar, (2018) 11 SCC 652