GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON LAKHI NARAYAN MUCHAHARY AND 2 ORS. V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 31 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 1:

1. Heard Mr. A. Kundu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. M. Nath, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5. I have also heard Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the actions on the part of the Respondent Authorities in erecting ST Electric Post on their respective lands alleging that the said actions are contrary to the settled principles of law.

3. The facts of the instant case as it reveal from the records are that all the three Petitioners are owners of various plots of land. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent APDCL have installed ST Electric post in their respective lands by forcefully entering into their respective lands and starting construction. It is the further case of the Petitioners that the Respondent Authorities have no authority to install/erect/lay down transmission line on or over the lands belonging to the private persons unless permissions are obtained incompliance with Rule 3(1) of the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules of 2006') framed in exercise of powers under Section 67(2) read with Section 176(2)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

4. The records reveal that this Court passed an order on 26.07.2017 whereby notice was issued and till the returnable date, the Respondent No.5 was directed not to energize the concerned 11 KV line. The record further reveals that no affidavit in the meantime has been filed. When the matter was taken up by this Court on 07.08.2025, this Court directed the Respondents to carry out assessment as to what amount the Petitioners are entitled to and provide an update to this Court by the next date fixed. In the meantime, the Respondents have carried out an assessment and as per their estimation, the three Petitioners are entitled to a total amount of Rs.23,312/-. This aspect would be apparent from the instructions placed before this Court which were kept on record and marked with the letter "Y".

5. It was also submitted by Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned Standing counsel for the APDCL that the Respondent Authorities have taken steps for making payment of the said amount of Rs.23,312/- to the Petitioners but the Petitioners have refused to accept.

6. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x9sIUfc0OKO3wJzwnMH0Hi4er%2BE59qW%2BC0Bp5NKXLCZM&caseno=WP(C)/4696/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010182242025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.