PREM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-06. PREM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37504] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13204/2026 CNR: RJHC010600942026 | URN: CW / 24031U / 2026 Prem Singh S/o Late Shri Jaman Singh, Aged About 68 Years, R/ o Malsar, District Churu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Power, Having Its Office At Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Power Grid Corporation Of India, Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Office At B-9, Qutab Industrial Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi-110016. 3. Project In-Charge, Powergrid Bikaner-Iv Transmission Limited Having Its Office At Leela Gauri Heights, B-1 Karni Nagar, Nagnechi Road, District-Bikaner Raj 334003. 4. District Collector And District Magistrate, District Churu Raj. 5. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sardarshahar, District Churu Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Ranjan Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet R. Dave Mr. Ankit Bhaskar for Mr. S. R.
Paliwal, Dy. S. G. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/08/2026 1. At the outset learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that an identical writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6706/2025; Maniram Vs. Power Grid Corporation Limited & Ors. claiming similar relief has already been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21. 04. 2025. [2026:RJ-JP:37504] (2 of 2) [CW-13204/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that though the above mentioned writ petition is dismissed however, respondents were asked to calculate and pay the compensation as applicable to the petitioner in a time bound manner. He further submits that he has no objection if the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. 4.
It is noted that in the present case, the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the laying down of a high-tension line. In view of the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the petitioner cannot object to the laying down of high-tension line but he is entitled for compensation in accordance with law. 5. In view of the above factual position, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as Maniram (supra). 6. Needless to observe, as directed in the above referred judgment, it shall be required of the respondents to calculate and pay the compensation applicable to the petitioners. 7. Petitioner's right to lay challenge to the amount of compensation determined shall stand reserved. The compensation shall be payed within a period of six months of the electricity line being laid over the petitioner's land. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 20-Arun/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.