HC costs Rs 5 lakh to MSEDCL against harassment to litigant

Aurangabad, Sept 14:

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court comprising Justice Ravindra V Ghughe and Justice S G Mehre has directed the MSEDCL chief engineer and executive engineer to deposit Rs 5 lakh as a 'cost' in the court by October 15. The court underlined that the whims and fancies of the MSEDCL officials forced the litigant to make rounds of the court, and face hardship for five consecutive years.

The bench also ordered the above MSEDCL engineers to submit the proposal of starting the acquisition process of land, bearing survey number 171, on Nilanga Talikhed (in Nilanga of Latur district), near the power transmission tower (No.2) to the competent authority before October 15.

It so happened that Dr Hiralal Ganpat Nimbalkar filed the petition through Adv A N Ansari in the High Court. He stated that he and his brother Ajit jointly owns four acres and three gunthas of land, bearing survey number 171, at Nilanga. Of which, the electricity distribution tower (No.2) of 132 KV capacity is existing in the land, which is in the share of his brother Ajit, on Nilanga Talikhed road. As a result, the villagers, are using the route for transportation, which is situated nearby. As a result, he is unable to utilise half-acre of the land since 2012.

Earlier, Nimbalkar has pleaded for justice before the district collector, who then issued an order directing MSEDCL to relocate the tower in six months and provide alternate road for the villagers, in 2016. The respondent (MSEDCL) then appealed before the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) claiming that it is unjust to shift the tower. Hence MERC granted a stay on the collector's order of relocating the tower, but the commission refused to interfere in the decision of providing an alternate road. Later on, the MERC had also rejected the review application filed by the defendant. Meanwhile, the bench observed that as the orders of the district collector and the MERC were overlooked by the respondent (MSEDCL), the petitioner had to approach the High Court.

Boxxxxxxxx

The petitioner underlined that he could not utilise the controversial land for agriculture purpose for years (from 2012 to 2017). He was also unable to sell the land (from 2017-2021) despite obtaining non-agriculture (N.A) permission in 2017. He could not also utilise the land for non-agricultural purpose. This is the best example of the whims and fancies of the officers concerned, observed the bench and gave the above order.