Landowner Cannot Claim Compensation for Land Beneath Overhead Transmission Lines, Aerial Right of Way Vests with State: J&K High Court

A Division Bench of the J&K and Ladakh High Court dismissed a landowner's appeal seeking compensation for land rendered unusable by a 220 KV transmission line, holding that aerial right of way belongs to the State and individual owners cannot assert any right over it.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, sitting at Srinagar, has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a landowner from District Budgam who sought compensation for the entirety of his land affected by the 220 KV D/C Zainakote–Amargarh transmission line. The Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, relying on a binding precedent of this Court, held that aerial right of way for transmission lines continues to vest with the State and individual landowners cannot assert any legal, fundamental, or constitutional right in respect of it. The appeal, LPA No. 235/2024, arose from a writ petition that had itself been dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 6 June 2024.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Ghulam Mohi Uddin Sheikh is a landowner at Akilpora, Razwan, Tehsil Beerwah, District Budgam. The respondents — the UT of J&K and others — undertook the laying of the 220 KV D/C Zainakote–Amargarh transmission line. The route was approved by the Central Electricity Authority, Government of India, and cleared by the Techno-Economic Committee.

For the construction of a transmission tower, 05 Marlas of the appellant's land falling under Khasra No. 372 Min was required. The appellant had sought shifting of the tower foundation, but this was declined on grounds of technical feasibility given the approved transmission route. Payment for the 05 Marlas was made at negotiated rates fixed during a private negotiation committee in 2008, chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam.

The appellant's grievance was broader. He contended that the 220 KV high-voltage transmission line passes through the middle of his entire landholding, rendering it unusable and uncultivable. He argued that compensation was paid only for the 05 Marlas on which the tower stands, while the rest of his land — over which the overhead lines pass — has been effectively rendered unproductive, depriving him of agricultural income and revenue from fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing trees.

Litigation History Leading to the Appeal

The appellant first approached the Court in OWP No. 1472/2015 titled Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Sheikh v. State of J&K and others. That petition was disposed of on 21 August 2015 with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim in light of the averments in the petition, the annexures, and the applicable rules, within four weeks.

The order of 21 August 2015 was not implemented. The appellant filed a contempt petition, CPOWP No. 316/2016. In compliance, the respondents placed on record consideration order No. 09 of 2015 dated 12 October 2015. That order rejected the appellant's claim, recording that the claim for compensation of the land had been examined on the touchstone of the applicable rules and found “not tenable under rules.”

The appellant then filed WP(C) No. 1531/2020, seeking to quash the consideration order dated 12 October 2015 and directing the respondents to assess and pay compensation for the land at Akilpora, Razwan over which the towers have been erected and the overhead lines laid, along with compensation for fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing trees. The learned Single Judge dismissed that writ petition on 6 June 2024, holding that a landowner cannot assert any legal, fundamental, or constitutional right in respect of a transmission line and that the aerial right of way continues to vest with the State. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenged that dismissal.

The Appellant's Case in the LPA

Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that while determining compensation for the land on which the tower was constructed, the respondents were required to consider the overall repercussions of the tower's location and the transmission lines passing through the middle of the land. The high-voltage line, he submitted, has rendered his entire landholding unusable and uncultivable.

The appellant contended that the respondents were duty-bound to pay compensation for the entire land over which the overhead transmission lines have been laid, not merely the 05 Marlas on which the tower stands. He also pressed for compensation for the impact of the high-voltage line on crops and on fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing trees, arguing that the acquisition of only 05 Marlas had diminished the value of the entire property through which the 220 KV line passes.

The appellant placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Livisha and others, reported as (2007) 6 SCC 792.

The respondents refuted the claim. They submitted that compensation for the land acquired for the tower had been released through private negotiation in 2008, and that the appellant had approached the Court after a lapse of almost six years. They further submitted that there exists no provision for grant of compensation for land falling under overhead transmission lines. As regards trees, they stated that compensation for trees required to be cut for providing a clear corridor had been assessed by the competent authority and duly paid by the office of the Collector Land Acquisition, PDT/MHPS, Bemina.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench identified the sole issue as whether an individual can assert an aerial right of way in respect of transmission lines. It held that this question is settled by a binding Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ranvijay Chand and others v. State of J&K and others, reported as 2005 (1) JKJ 236.

In Ranvijay Chand, the Division Bench had held that a landholder cannot assert any right — legal, fundamental, or constitutional — in respect of a transmission line. The aerial right of way for transmission lines continues to vest with the State, and individual owners cannot claim compensation in respect thereof. The Court in that case had also observed that transmission lines laid as per the original alignment approved in the project report, in pursuance of a sanctioned scheme whose feasibility was cleared by the Techno-Economic Committee, cannot be interfered with, and that the landowners cannot assert any right violated by the respondents in doing an act within the purview of their statutory powers.

The Division Bench in the present appeal extracted the relevant paragraphs of Ranvijay Chand and applied them directly. It held that since the aerial right of way remains with the State and individual landowners cannot assert any right over it unless there is loss or damage resulting therefrom, and since the appellant had already received compensation for 05 Marlas of land by private negotiation, the issue of compensation stood settled. The contention regarding payment of compensation for land falling under the transmission corridor was held inadmissible in view of Ranvijay Chand.

On the question of trees, the Bench noted that compensation for trees cut to provide a corridor for the transmission line is being assessed and is lying in the office of the Collector. The appellant was directed to approach that office for the same.

Outcome

The Division Bench found no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6 June 2024 in WP(C) No. 1531/2020. LPA No. 235/2024 was dismissed as being without merit. The appellant was left to approach the office of the Collector Land Acquisition, PDT/MHPS, Bemina, for any pending tree compensation.