Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that landowners cannot claim compensation merely because high-voltage transmission lines pass over their property, reiterating that the aerial right of way for transmission lines remains vested with the State.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Ghulam Mohi Uddin Sheikh, challenging a previous judgment that had rejected his claim for compensation for land falling under a 220 KV Double Circuit Zainakote-Amargarh transmission line in Budgam.
According to the case record, a portion of the appellant’s land was acquired for construction of a transmission tower as part of the power project. The landowner had been paid compensation for five marlas of land through a negotiated settlement in 2008. However, he later contended that the transmission line passing through the middle of his property had rendered the entire land unusable and uncultivable, thereby depriving him of income and reducing the property’s value.
The appellant sought compensation not only for the acquired land but also for the entire area beneath the overhead transmission line, besides compensation for fruit-bearing and non-fruit-bearing trees allegedly affected by the project.
Earlier, he had approached the High Court in 2015, seeking consideration of his claim. Following court directions, the authorities examined the matter and rejected the request, holding that it was not tenable under the applicable rules. That decision was subsequently challenged through a writ petition, which was dismissed in June 2024, prompting the present appeal.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the authorities had failed to take into account the overall impact of the transmission line on the utility and value of his land. He maintained that compensation should have been assessed for the entire affected property rather than only the land occupied by the transmission tower.
The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that compensation had already been paid for the land acquired for the tower and that there was no legal provision providing compensation for land merely because it falls beneath overhead transmission lines. They also informed the court that compensation for trees removed to create the transmission corridor had already been assessed by the competent authority.
While dismissing the appeal, the Bench relied on the earlier Division Bench judgment in Ranvijay Chand and others v. State of J&K and others, which held that individual landowners cannot assert any legal, constitutional or fundamental right over the aerial right of way used for transmission lines. The court observed that transmission lines are laid in accordance with approved project reports and sanctioned schemes, and the aerial corridor continues to vest with the State.
The Bench held that since the appellant had already received compensation for the land acquired for construction of the tower, the issue stood settled. It further ruled that compensation for land falling under the transmission corridor was not admissible under the law laid down by the High Court. As regards compensation for trees, the court noted that the assessed amount was lying with the office of the Collector and could be claimed by the appellant.
Finding no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the earlier judgment, the court dismissed the appeal, bringing an end to the litigation.
