 |
| Installation of electricity pool |
WAPDA’s Legal Responsibility to Pay Compensation for Installing Electricity Poles on Private Land – 2018 CLC 1120
نجی زمین پر بجلی کے کھمبے نصب کرنے اور معاوضے کی ادائیگی سے متعلق پشاور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ
نجی زمین پر بجلی کے کھمبے، ٹاور یا بجلی کی لائنیں نصب کرنے کے معاملے میں زمین کے مالکان کے قانونی حقوق کا تحفظ ضروری ہے۔ واپڈا یا متعلقہ ادارہ بجلی کی فراہمی کے لیے نجی زمین استعمال کرتے وقت قانون میں مقرر کردہ شرائط کو نظر انداز نہیں کر سکتا۔ پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے مقدمہ Bakht Muhammad and 4 others v. Secretary WAPDA and others (2018 CLC 1120) میں اس قانونی معاملے پر اہم ہدایات جاری کیں۔
مقدمے کے حقائق
درخواست گزار اپنی زمینوں میں واپڈا کی جانب سے 220 کے وی بجلی کی لائن کے لیے کھمبے اور ٹاور نصب کرنے کے عمل سے متاثر تھے۔ ان کا مؤقف تھا کہ واپڈا نے ان کی قیمتی زمینوں میں کھدائی شروع کر دی، جس سے انہیں مالی نقصان پہنچا، لیکن نہ تو نقصان کا مناسب تخمینہ لگایا گیا اور نہ ہی انہیں معاوضہ ادا کیا گیا۔
درخواست گزاروں نے ہائی کورٹ سے استدعا کی کہ واپڈا کو قانونی تقاضے پورے کیے بغیر ان کی زمینوں میں کام کرنے سے روکا جائے۔
دفعہ 12، الیکٹریسٹی ایکٹ 1910 کی قانونی اہمیت
الیکٹریسٹی ایکٹ 1910 کی دفعہ 12 بجلی کی فراہمی کی لائنیں نصب کرنے اور زمین یا دیگر مقامات پر کام کرنے سے متعلق قانونی شرائط بیان کرتی ہے۔
اس دفعہ کے تحت نجی زمین پر بجلی کی لائن یا دیگر تنصیبات لگانے کے معاملے میں مالک یا قابض کی رضامندی اور قانون میں مقرر کردہ اجازت کے تقاضے اہم ہیں۔ جہاں قانونی طور پر مجاز افسر کی اجازت درکار ہو، وہاں اس طریقۂ کار کی پابندی کرنا ضروری ہے۔
دفعہ 12(3) کے تحت، مخصوص حالات میں مجاز افسر معاوضے یا سالانہ کرایے کی رقم مقرر کر سکتا ہے۔
دفعہ 14، واپڈا ایکٹ 1958 کے تحت معاوضے کا حق
واپڈا ایکٹ 1958 کی دفعہ 14 متعلقہ مجاز حکام کو قانونی شرائط کے تحت زمین میں داخل ہونے، سروے کرنے اور منصوبے کی تیاری کے لیے ضروری کام کرنے کا اختیار دیتی ہے۔
تاہم، اگر زمین واپڈا کی ملکیت نہ ہو تو کام اس انداز میں کیا جانا چاہیے کہ مالک کے حقوق میں کم سے کم مداخلت ہو اور کم سے کم نقصان پہنچے۔
دفعہ 14(2) کے تحت زمین میں داخل ہونے کے نتیجے میں ہونے والے ضروری نقصان کا معاوضہ ادا کرنا یا اس کی ادائیگی کی پیشکش کرنا لازم ہے۔ معاوضے کی مقدار پر اختلاف کی صورت میں متعلقہ قانون کے تحت مقرر کردہ افسر سے رجوع کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ کا اہم قانونی اصول
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے Nisar Ahmad v. Masood Akhtar and others (2011 SCMR 226) سے رہنمائی حاصل کی۔
سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا تھا کہ بجلی کی فراہمی کی اہمیت اپنی جگہ، لیکن واپڈا کو بجلی کے کھمبے نصب کرنے اور لائنیں گزارنے کے لیے قانونی طریقۂ کار کی پابندی کرنا ہوگی۔ جہاں قانون اجازت اور معاوضے کا تقاضا کرتا ہو، وہاں ان شرائط کو نظر انداز نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
پشاور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ
پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست گزاروں اور دیگر متاثرہ زمین مالکان کو ہدایت کی کہ وہ فیصلے کی وصولی کے 30 دن کے اندر متعلقہ ایگزیکٹو انجینئر آبپاشی کے سامنے اپنی شکایات پیش کریں۔
عدالت نے متعلقہ افسر کو ہدایت کی کہ معاملہ قانون کے مطابق دو ماہ کے اندر طے کیا جائے۔ واپڈا کی جانب سے متاثرین کے دعوے پہلے مسترد کیے جانے کے سابقہ فیصلوں کو بھی معاملے کے نئے تعین میں نظر انداز کرنے کی ہدایت کی گئی۔
عدالت نے آئینی درخواست انہی ہدایات کے ساتھ نمٹا دی۔ عدالت نے خود معاوضے کی کوئی مخصوص رقم مقرر نہیں کی۔
زمین مالکان کے لیے اہم قانونی نکات
- نجی زمین پر بجلی کے کھمبے یا لائنیں نصب کرنے کے لیے متعلقہ قانونی تقاضے پورے کرنا ضروری ہے۔
- زمین کو پہنچنے والے نقصان کے معاوضے کا دعویٰ متعلقہ قانون کے تحت کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
- معاوضے کی رقم پر اختلاف ہو تو متعلقہ مجاز افسر سے رجوع کیا جا سکتا ہے۔
- بجلی کی فراہمی عوامی ضرورت ہے، لیکن اس مقصد کے لیے بھی قانون کی پابندی لازم ہے۔
نتیجہ
فیصلہ 2018 CLC 1120 نجی زمین کے مالکان کے لیے اہم قانونی رہنمائی فراہم کرتا ہے۔ اس سے واضح ہوتا ہے کہ بجلی کی لائنیں نصب کرنے کے دوران واپڈا کے اختیارات قانون کے تابع ہیں اور متاثرہ زمین مالکان اپنے قانونی حقوق کے تحفظ اور نقصان کے معاوضے کے لیے متعلقہ قانونی فورم سے رجوع کر سکتے ہیں۔
قانونی حوالہ: 2018 CLC 1120، پشاور ہائی کورٹ، مینگورہ بنچ، فیصلہ مورخہ 22 نومبر 2017ء۔
متعلقہ قوانین: دفعہ 12، الیکٹریسٹی ایکٹ 1910؛ دفعہ 14، واپڈا ایکٹ 1958۔
اہم نوٹ: ہر مقدمے میں معاوضے اور اجازت کا تعین حقائق، متعلقہ قانونی دفعات اور دستیاب ریکارڈ کی روشنی میں ہوگا۔
Must read judgment.
2018 C L C 1120
[Peshawar (Mingora Bench)]
Before Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Muhammad Nasir Mehfooz, JJ
BAKHT MUHAMMAD and 4 others---Petitioners
Versus
SECRETARY WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) AT ISLAMABAD and 7 others---Respondents
W.P. No.740-M of 2017, decided on 22st November, 2017.
Electricity Act (IX of 1910)-
--S. 12-Pakistan Water and Power Development Act Act (XXXI of 1958), 5. 14-Laying down/Placing of electricity supply lines-Entr into private land-Scope-Petitioners were owners of land and they were aggrieved of excavation of their lands by authorities to fix poles/towers for purposes of electricity supply lines, without payment of any compensation-Validity-Petitioners and all other such affectees were to approach concerned Executive Engineer Irrigation under provisions of S. 12 of Electricity Act, 1910 and S. 14 of Pakistan Water and Power Development Act, 1958- High Court directed Executive Engineer Irrigation to resolve the issue regarding grievance of petitioners and such other affectees in accordance with law-Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Nisar Ahmad v. Masood Akhtar and others 2011 SCMR 226 fol
Syed Abdul Haq for Petitioners.
Akhtar Munir for Respondents.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHFOOZ, J.-Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, on the ground that the respondents/WAPDA has awarded a project for erecting electricity poles 220 KV recting electricity poles line and without following the legal provisions of law and without payment of any compensation, they have started excavation of their valuable lands. According to the details of number of poles/towers along with serial numbers of pole is mentioned below:-
S.No.
1
Petitioners
Poles/Tower Number 110, 111, 112 and 117
Bakht Muhammad
121 and 122
Naseeb Rawan
114 and 115
Omer Islam
Yar Nawaz Khan
118
Izhar Hussain
113
-
It is alleged that due to the act of respondents they have suffered huge financial losses and their property has been damaged but no proper procedure for assessment of damages or compensation has been followed, hence, seek restraining the respondents from the said act.
-
The standing counsel for the respondents Mr. Akhtar Munir, Advocate appeared in court and stated that this is the only recourse to stop the menace of load shedding.
This court has already decided the subject matter on 8.10.2017 in W.P. No.34-M/2017. Reliance is also placed on judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2011 SCMR 226 Nisar Ahmad v. Masood Akhtar and others.
- The erection of poles and supply lines are dealt with in section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is reproduced for convenience:-
"12. Provisions as to the opening and breaking up of streets, railways and tramways. (1) Any licensee may, from time to time but subject always to the terms and conditions of his license, within the area of supply, or when permitted by the terms of his license to
lay down or place electric supply-lines without the area of supply, without that area.
(a) open and break up the soil and payment of any street, railway or tramway
(b) open and break up any sewer, drain or tunnel in or under any street, railway or tramway
(c) lay down and place electric supply lines and other works;
(d) repair, alter or remove the same; and
(e) do all other acts necessary for the clue supply of energy.
(2)
Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be deemed to authorize or empower a licensee, without the consent of the local authority or of the owner and occupier concerned, as the case may be, to lay down or place any electric supply - line or other work in through or against any building, or on, over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, where over or where under any electric supply - line or work has not already heen lawfully been lawfully laid down or I down or placed by such licensee:
Provided that any support or an aerial line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an aerial line may be fixed on any building or land, or having been so fixed may be altered, notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate by order in writing so directs: Provided also, that, if at any time the owner or occupier of any building or land on which any such support, stay or strut has been fixed shows sufficient cause the District Magistrate may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.
(3) When making an order under subsection (2), the District Magistrate shall fix the amount of compensation or of annual rent, or of both which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier.
(4) Every order made by a District Magistrate under subsection (2) shall be subject to revision by the Provincial Government.
(5) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be deemed to authorize or empower any licensee to open or break up any street not repairable by the Federal Government or the Provincial Government or a local authority, or any railway or tramway, except such streets, railways or tramways (if any), or such parts thereof, as he is specially authorized to break up by this license. without the written consent of the person by whom the street is repairable or of the person for the time being entitled to work the railway or tramway unless with the written consent of the Provincial Government.
Provided that the Provincial Government shall not give any such consent as aforesaid, until the licensee has given notice by advertisement or otherwise as the Provincial Government may direct, and within such period as the Provincial Government may fix in this behalf, to the person above referred to, and until all representations or objections received in accordance with the notice having been considered by the Provincial Government.
(Underlines supplied for emphasis)
- Similarly Section 14 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) Act, 1958, being relevant with the present matter, is also reproduced for the sake of convenience:-
"14. Right of entry.-(1) The Chairman or any person authorised by him in writing, may enter upon and survey any land, erect pillars for the determination of intended lines of works, make borings and excavations and do all other acts which may be necessary for the preparation of any scheme:
Provided that when the affected land does not vest in the Authority, the power conferred by this subsection shall be exercised in such manner as to cause the least interference with, and the least damage to, the rights of the owner thereof.
(2) When any person enters into or upon any land in pursuance of subsection (1), he shall, at the time of entering or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, pay or tender payment for all necessary damage to be done as aforesaid, and in case if dispute as to
(2) When any person enters into or upon any land in pursuance of subsection (1), he shall, at the time of entering or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, pay or tender payment for all necessary damage to be done as aforesaid, and in case if dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered the dispute shall be referred to the Deputy Commissioner of the district whose decision shall be final"
Through N.W.F.P (Amendment of Laws) Ordinance XVIII of 2001 in section 14(2), the word "Deputy Commissioner has now been substituted with "Executive Engineer Irrigation".
- The august Supreme Court in judgment rendered in case titled "Nisar Ahmad v. Masood Akhtar and others" (2011 SCMR 226) held as under:-
"The said provision clearly bars the licensee (WAPDA) to lay down any electricity supply line or other work on or over any land without the consent of its owner or occupier. In case of objection by the owner or the occupier of the land, the licensee is obliged to obtain written permission from the District Magistrate before erecting any electric pole or laying aerial line. In case, the District Magistrate grants such permission, he is obligated to fix the amount of compensation or rent to be paid by the licensee to the to the owner
or occupier of the land. This process is to be undertaken before installation as the Magistrate is required to inquire into the merits of the objection raised by the owner. Permission can be refused in appropriate cases. The fixation of compensation by the District Magistrate upon direction of the Appellate Court was not in terms of section 12 of the Act. The direction appears to have been influenced by the equitable consideration that removal of the poles and power supply to the appellant would be unfair and unjust. This was not relevant factor for the Appellate Court to have taken into consideration in view of the clear statement of the law. Even if the case was to be considered on equity, the Appellate Court lost sight of the fact that the installation of the electric poles, the laying of aerial wiring to the land of the appellant and installation of meter was completed with indecent haste of only two days when the plaintiff was away from the village.
-
True that WAPDA is responsible for providing electricity connection to its consumers but only in accordance with the procedure laid down in the law. As already determined, the electric poles were erected on the land owned by the respondent and the aerial wires were also laid over it. This having been done without the consent of the respondent and the written permission of the District Magistrate, WAPDA had violated the provision of section 12 of the Electricity Act. Since the findings of the Appellate Court were not in accord with the said statutory provisions, the High Court was justified in setting them aside in its revisional jurisdiction. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost".
-
We thus while getting guidance from the above referred judgment of the apex Court, section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910 and section 14 of the WAPDA Act, 1958, direct that the petitioners and all other affectees are allowed to approach the concerned Executive Engineer Irrigation within 30 days of the receipt of this judgment by placing their grievances before him and Executive Engineer Irrigation shall resolve the issue regarding the grievances of the petitioners and other affectees strictly ly in in a accordance with the law above referred. The Executive Engineer Irrigation is directed to decide the matter if placed before him within a period of two months positively, but strictly in accordance with law. Either party, if aggrieved of his determination, would be at liberty to avail the remedies available to them under the law. Needless to observe that any decision of the WAPDA previously issued regretting the claims of the affectees shall be ignored by the Executive Engineer Irrigation while deciding the above matter. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
MH/409/P
Order accordingly.