Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010005932025 2026:GAU-AS:8921 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/404/2025 SIDDIQUE ABDUL RAHIM S/O- LATE SAUKAT ALI, VILLAGE- JOGIGHOPA, BHATIPARA, P.O AND P.S- JOGIGHOPA, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF POWER , DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LIMITED LIMITED (AEGCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (O AND M) LAR AEGCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 4:THE SENIOR CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR GOVT. OF ASSAM BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 5:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER 132 KV GRADE SUB STATION DIVISION Page No.# 2/10 AEGCL DHALIGAON DIVISION DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783385 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MR. A WAHAB,MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , SC, AEGCL,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT Date : 18-06-2026 Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 4 & 6; and Mr. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited [AEGCL] for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his family members who are successors-in-interest of one Late Soukat Ali, have been residing in a family owned plot of land, covered by Periodic Patta no. 103, situated at Village – Jogighopa & Bhatipara, P.O. & P.S. – Jogighopa, District – Bongaigaon, Assam [‘the subject-plot’] since the year 1966 by constructing dwelling houses. The family also planted different trees in the subject-plot. Page No.# 3/10 3. It is an admitted position that an overhead Transmission Line, that is, 220 KV BTPS Agia Transmission Line [‘the Transmission Line’] was installed between 1985 and 1987 and the petitioner’s subject-plot fell in the approved route of the Transmission Line. The Transmission Line was installed by the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board [ASEB] and after trifurcation of the ASEB, the operation and maintenance of the Transmission Line stood transferred to the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited [AEGCL]. Since after such transfer, the Transmission Line is being maintained by the AEGCL till date. 4. At an earlier point of time, the petitioner with his six brothers and two cousin brothers, approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1981/2011 with a projection that at the time of construction of the Transmission Line, no compensation was paid to the family. There was an allegation that the said overhead Transmission Line collapsed twice, once in 1966 and again in 2010. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation to them and also, to ensure protection of the subject-plot from the Transmission Line. 5. The Court after consideration of the materials in the pleadings in its Order dated 22.03.2012 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1981/2011, recorded as under :- (1) The transmission tower as referred to, in the writ petition was constructed in the year 1987; (2) For the aforesaid construction, land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 5 Page No.# 4/10 lessas was acquired by the authorities for which compensation of Rs. 36,630.00 at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per bigha was assessed and paid. The payment was received by one Abu Hanif Haidary, the petitioner No. 5 on behalf of his father, who was the recorded pattadar of the land. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are all brothers and petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 are their cousins. The receipt of the aforesaid amount has not been disclosed in the writ petition. (3) The claim of the petitioners for compensation on account of damage of their lands because of the high tension over head lines traversing their land would require factual determination. 6. Contrary to the claim made by the petitioner in W.P.[C] no. 1981/2011, the Court had found that an amount of Rs. 36,630/- was assessed and paid towards compensation for acquiring the Right of Way for installation of the 220 KV Transmission Line. The Court had further observed that the claim of the petitioner on account of damage of their lands would require factual determination. With such findings, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and the writ petition was dismissed by the Order dated 22.03.2012. The Court had further observed that notwithstanding the dismissal of the petitioner, if the petitioners would have any grievance as regards the Transmission Line, it would be open for them to take recourse to the provisions of Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 7. After dismissal of the writ petition, the office of the respondent no. 6 wrote a Letter to the respondent AEGCL authorities on 23.02.2021 for ensuring protection of the family as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003. With the said letter, a joint survey/assessment report on zirat/structure Page No.# 5/10 submitted by the jurisdictional Circle Officer in respect of the petitioner and others was also forwarded wherein an amount was mentioned to be payable as compensation as per the joint survey/assessment report. 8. Seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to implement the Letter dated 23.02.2021, the petitioner herein approached this Court again by a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6720/2022. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had asserted that the Transmission Line snapped on two occasions causing damage to the residential house, trees and other valuable properties of the petitioner. Referring to the liberty granted by the Court in the Order dated 22.03.2012 to seek recourse under Section 68 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the petitioner instituted the writ petition. 9. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6720/2022 came up for consideration on 02.11.2022. The Court taking note of the provisions of Section 68[5] of the Electricity Act, 2023, had observed that the said provisions of law was not a provision for enabling any compensation for properties upon overhead lines being constructed by the electricity authorities, nor it was a provision for payment of damages of any property which might be lying below the overhead lines in the event the overhead lines got snapped resulting in any damage being caused. In view of the provisions of Section 68[5] of the Electricity Act, the Court did not accept the survey report prepared and forwarded by the Letter dated 23.02.2021 wherein a request was also made to the AEGCL authorities to pay the compensation that had been assessed in the survey report. Observing so, the Court had recorded that the prayer made in the said writ petition for a direction to implement the Letter dated 23.02.2021 was unacceptable. Page No.# 6/10 10. While disposing of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6720/2022, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the respondent no. 2 stating the detail as to when the snapping of Transmission Line had taken place and what were the legitimate properties of the petitioner that were damaged because of such snapping. The Court had further observed that upon such application being made, the respondent would make a thorough enquiry on such allegation. For the purpose, the petitioner shall also made an application before the Senior Chief Electrical Inspector of the Government of Assam, who in turn, would make an enquiry and give its report. If the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector as well as the conclusion of the respondent no. 2 was in favour of the petitioner that his properties were damaged because of negligence on the part of the AEGCL due to snapping of the Transmission Line, then appropriate compensation would be assessed and paid to the petitioner. 11. It is in the above backdrop, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent no. 2 on 11.01.2023 making specific reference to an incident stated to have occurred on 07.09.2022, apart from the earlier two incidents of snapping on 1996 and 2010. On receipt of the application, the respondent no. 2 as well as the Senior Chief Electrical Inspector [the respondent no. 4] caused enquiries from their ends into the reported incident of snapping on 07.09.2022. 12. After enquiry, the respondent no. 4 submitted a Report before the respondent no. 2 wherein it was mentioned as under :- The B-phase conductor of the ckt-II of 220kV BTPS-Agia transmission line at location 143 (anchor tower) snapped at 18:15 hrs. On 07.09.2022. Page No.# 7/10 The maintenance team was present at the spot at that time and snapping was witnessed by the team. On inspection, it was found that the aluminium compression tube of the dead-end assembly got broken towards Agia end at location 143 and the conductor had fallen on the ground between location 143 and 144 (suspension tower). The other end (BTPS side) of the conductor was intact at location 143. The fallen conductor was hanging at suspension assembly at location 144. This fallen conductor fell on a coconut tree in the residential premise near tower at location 144, of which Mr. Siddique Abdul Rahim is one of the resident along with his family and brothers' family. 13. The respondent no. 2 has also examined a Report dated 19.09.2012 concerning the subject-plot, submitted by the Lat Mandal of the area. In the said Report, it was reported that the petitioner’s family had planted trees after the installation of the Transmission Line in between 1985 to 1987. As per the said Report prepared on the basis of records available, the petitioner planted trees and constructed houses as per their will in the Transmission Line corridor without taking any permission from the concerned authorities or maintaining any safety measures, after the incident of snapping of the Transmission Line in the year 2010. 14. Based on the findings recorded in the Report of the respondent no. 4 and the Report dated 19.09.2012 of the Lat Mandal, the respondent no. 2 reached a conclusion that the trees and houses that were present under the Transmission Line or within the Transmission Line corridor could not have been present in the Transmission Line corridor as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. On the basis of such conclusion, the respondent no. 2 had come to a conclusion that no Page No.# 8/10 properties of the petitioner were found damaged because of negligence on the part of the AEGCL authorities. 15. From the Order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2, this Court finds that the said authority had reached the conclusion on the basis of two fact-finding enquiry reports submitted by the respondent no. 4, as per the direction made in the Order dated 02.11.2022, and the jurisdictional Land Revenue Office Staff, which was called for by him. The respondent no. 2 had recorded the finding on the basis of the said two-fact finding enquiry reports that the coconut tree which got damaged due to snapping of the Transmission Line on 07.09.2022, was planted after the earlier snapping incident of 2010, that too, inside the Transmission Line corridor without taking permission from the AEGCL, the authority which exercises the Right of Way within the Transmission Line corridor and therefore, the damaged coconut tree does not come within the scope and ambit of the provision of Section 68[6] of the Electricity Act. 16. 16. The Government of India in the Ministry of Power after analyzing all the issues related to Right of Way [RoW] for laying of transmission lines in the country and in order to formulate a uniform methodology for payment of compensation in that connection, had taken the views of the State Governments and thereafter, formulated a set of guidelines for determining the compensation towards ‘damages’ as stipulated in Section 67 and Section 68 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 and Section 16 of the Telegraph Act and the said guidelines have been incorporated in a Circular bearing no. 03/07/2015-Trans dated 15.10.2015 of the Ministry of Power, Government of India. It has been provided therein that such compensation towards damages would be in addition Page No.# 9/10 to the compensation towards normal crop and tree damages and the compensation amount would be payable only for transmission lines supported by a tower base of 66 KV and above and not for sub-transmission and distribution lines below 66 KV. By the Circular dated 15.10.2015, all the States / Union Territories have been requested to take suitable decisions regarding adoption of the guidelines considering that acquisition of land is a State subject. 17. Following the above guidelines formulated by the Government of India, the Government of Assam has taken a decision that a similar payment methodology towards compensation shall also be adopted in the State of Assam. Accordingly, the Government of Assam in the Power [Electricity] Department has notified the following rates for payment of compensation towards damages with regard to Right of Way [RoW] for transmission lines by a Notification bearing no. PEL.219/2015/91 dated 10.03.2017, which was published in the Assam Gazette in its issue dated 16.05.2017. 18. As per the Circular dated 15.10.2015 of the Ministry of Power, Government of India and the Notification dated 10.03.2017 of the Power [Electricity] Department, Government of Assam, the width of Right of Way [in meters] is 35 Meters for a Transmission Line of transmission voltage 220 KV. Meaning thereby, the land owner over the land of whom an overhead Transmission Line of 220 KV is installed is not permitted to plant trees within a width of 35 Meters after the Transmission Licensee acquires the Right of Way. The respondent no. 2 is found to have reached the conclusion that the coconut tree damaged in the snapping incident of 07.09.2022 as planted within the Transmission Line corridor after the snapping incident of 2010, which was much after acquisition of the Right of Way by payment of due compensation. Page No.# 10/10 19. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not ordinarily embark on an enquiry for determination of facts. In the event fact-finding enquiry reports are available and the competent authority is found to have drawn its conclusion on the basis of the findings recorded in such fact-finding enquiry report, this Court would not proceed to act as if it is in appeal over such findings of facts and the conclusion derived therefrom. A conclusion reached by a competent authority can only be interfered within a limited sphere when the conclusion reached by the competent authority is of perverse nature or without consideration of the relevant factors or by considering irrelevant factors. Such a situation is not found to be present in the case in hand and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in respect of the Order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2, which is impugned in this writ petition. 20. Consequently, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is liable to dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Pallabi Das Date: 2026.06.20 14:21:44 +05'30'