New Delhi: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought Haryana government’s response on a petition that challenged its July 2024 notification, restricting compensation under its policy for laying of power transmission lines of 66 kilovolts (kV) and above.
By way of the order on 12 September, a bench of Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Vikas Suri issued notice on the petition which had challenged the exclusion of transmission lines below 66 kV for compensation purposes, terming it as “arbitrary” and “illegal”.
Speaking to ThePrint, advocate Prashant Lather, who brought this notice to the attention of the court, said, “The Haryana government, last year, had issued a notification for electricity compensation, under the Telegraph Act, which essentially allowed them to use land without acquiring it.”
Although they said that they would compensate whoever’s land they use, the actual compensation in the government’s 10th July, 2024 notification was only restricted to transmission lines supported by a tower base of level 66 kV, and not below that. One kV equals a thousand volts.
Challenging this notification as illegal on account of his client’s land being used despite its tower base being 33 kV only, Lather said, “They put 33 kV of power and got their electricity. They used my land, although it didn’t meet the 66 kV requirement. This was a violation of our constitutional rights to equality and property, under Articles 14 and 300A.
The matter will be heard next on 5 January, next year.
On 10 July last year, the Haryana government’s energy department made provisions for determining compensation towards the damages and payment for the Right of Way (RoW), under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, for laying of transmission lines with 66 kV of power, and above, in the state of Haryana.
In simple terms, Right of Way refers (RoW) to a path one is legally allowed to use to cross land that does not belong to them. In case of electric transmission lines, it refers to a strip of land required by a utility for constructing, maintaining and protecting their transmission line.
One of the subclauses in this notification said that compensation can be paid only for those transmission lines which are supported by a tower base of 66 kV voltage levels and above, and not those which are below this level.
Lather also told ThePrint, that the Haryana government had decided to give 200 percent market value compensation to farmers whose land was used for erection of electricity towers but then in its actual notification this relief was limited to cases where 66 kV or above transmission lines were laid.
Also Read: Haryana tightens rules for post-retirement govt jobs: Panel approval must, 2-year cap introduced
Why was it being challenged
The notification was challenged by one Anil Singh, in the present case, whose land had been used for power transmission purposes, although without any compensation.
Challenging the Haryana government’s energy department notice, the petitioner argued that it restricted compensation to 66 kV and above, and sought compensation for use of their land, and the installation of 33-kV towers and right(s) of way by the government.
The petitioner argued that although the state government’s policy had provisions for higher compensation, his land was “burdened” with the erection of eight M6 towers, and stringing of 33 kV electric lines, without prior notice, hearing or even his consent. Moreover, he was not paid any compensation for use of the tower base or right of way corridor, he said.
Although the state’s 2024 policy contained provisions for determining compensation towards damages and payment for the right of way, for laying electricity transmission lines, it confined this to values of 66 kV and above.
Challenging this exclusion of 33-kV lines from the policy’s ambit, Singh argued that despite identical injury and the unconstitutional actions of the BJP-led Haryana government, such preclusion from the policy failed the “twin test of reasonable classification” under Article 14, which allows for exception to the right to equality, under certain conditions like if such exceptions are fair, just and non-arbitrary.
Saying that there exists no intelligible differentia between landowners whose holdings are encumbered by 66 kV and those whose holdings are encumbered by 33 kV, Singh challenged the policy as “arbitrary” and illegal.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Why Punjab & Haryana High Court awarded Rs 1 crore compensation to a road accident victim