ORDER

A.K. Patnaik, J.

1. The case of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that he has purchased a plot of land in mouza and tehsil Dhanpur, holding Nos. 152 and 173 which was a part of the formerly Khatian No. 21, CS plot No, 184 measuring O. 57 acres over the said plot of land, 132 KV high tension electric wire has been drawn without the consent of the petitioner. As a result, he has been prevented from raising any construction on the said plot of land and planting any tree under the said electric wire and also within 20 ft. each side of the said electric line. He filed an application dated 21-9-98 to the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, requesting him to direct the Department of Power, Government of Tripura, to make payment of compensation to him for drawing high tension electric wire over the said plot of land. When no orders were passed on the said application of the petitioner, he filed a representation before the Secretary to the Govt of Tripura, Department of Power, on 4-1-99. When no orders were communicated to him by the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Department, of Power, on the said representation of the petitioner, the petitioner moved this Court in WP (C) No. 72/99 and by order dated 19-2-99, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Power, to dispose of the said representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction of this Court, the Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura, Department of Power, disposed of the said representation of the petitioner by order dated 26-7-99. The said order dated 26-7-99 was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 4-8-99 of the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura. By the said order dated 26-7-99, the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, has held that the compensation of Rs. 2000/- as assessed by the Department was commensurate with the damage caused to the trees on the land of the petitioner which were cut and fell at the time of drawing 66 KV extra high voltage transmission line over the land of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has made a prayer before this Court to direct the respondents either to make payment of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner as compensation for drawing high tension electricity wire over his land or to refer the dispute to arbitration as provided under Section 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, within stipulated time.

2. When the case was taken up for hearing at the stage of admission, Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since a difference or dispute has arisen as to the quantum of compensation between the petitioner and the respondents, a direction can be given by this Court to the respondents to refer the said dispute or difference to the statutory arbitration under Sections 19 and 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 within stipulated time.

3. Mr. U. B. Saha, Sr. GA, Tripura, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had in fact approached the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, under Section 12 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, (for short "the Act") for compensation as would be clear from Annexure-C to the writ petition, and when the District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura, Agartala, did not pass any order on the said claim of the petitioner for compensation, he filed a representation under Section 12(4) of the Act before the Principal Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, and this Court in WP(C) 72/99 in fact directed the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. According to Mr. Saha, therefore, this is a case which falls under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act and the bare language of Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act would show that the cases falling under Section 12(3) are not to be referred to arbitration. Mr. Saha vehemently argued that in fact by the earlier order passed by this Court on 19-2-99 in WP (C) No. 72/99, this Court had directed the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, to decide the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to compensation under Section 12 of the Act.

4. Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12, and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 of the Act, are quoted herein below :--

"12(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to authorise or empower a licensee, without the consent of the legal authority or of the owner or 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, whereover or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee :

Provided that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on any building or land or, having been so fixed, may be alltered, notwithstanding the objection of owner or occupier of such building or land, if the District Magistrate or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police 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 or, in a Presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police may by order in writing direct any such support, stay or strut to be removed or altered.

(3) When making an order under Sub-section (2), the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, as the case may be, 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 Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police under Sub-section (2) shall be subject to revision by the State Government.

19. (1) A licensee shall, in exercise of any of the powers conferred by or under this Act, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him.

(2) Save in the case provided for in Section 12. Sub-section (3), where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount or the application of such compensation the matter shall be determined by arbitration."

A plain reading of the main provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act quoted above would show that without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land concerned, a licensee cannot lay down or place any electric supply-line over or under any land not dedicated to public use whereon, whereover, or whereunder any electric supply-line or work has not already been lawfully laid down or placed by such licensee. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 12, however, states that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of security in position any support of an overhead line may be filed on any land or having been so fixed, may be allered, notwithstanding the objection of owner or occupier of such land, if the District Magistrate by order in writing so directs. Subsection (3) of Section 12 of the Act, however, states that while making an order under Sub-section (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. Thus Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act applies only to a case where the owner objects to any support of an overhead line, or any stay, or strut required for the sole purpose of security in position any support of an overhead line, and the District Magistrate orders in writing that notwithstanding the objection raised by the owner or accupier of the land, such support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on the land of such order or occupier. In such a case falling under proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, the District Magistrate will have to fix the amount of compensation or annual rent or of both which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owner or occupier. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act provides that the order passed by the District Magistrate under Sub-section (2) shall be subject to revision by the State Government.

5. From an analysis of the provisions of the aforesaid Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act, it would be clear that the said sub-sections do not apply to a case where no orders are passed by the District Magistrate directing that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose of securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on any land notwithstanding the objection of the owner or occupier of the land. In the instant case, no such order appears to have been passed by the District Magistrate directing that any support of an overhead line or any stay or strut required for the sole purpose securing in position any support of an overhead line may be fixed on the land of the petitioner notwithstanding his objection. Sub-sections (2) (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act have, therefore, no application at all. By the order dated 19-2-99 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 72/ 99 it has not been held that Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act apply to the dispute raised by the petitioner and all that has been directed by the order dated 19-2-99 of this Court that the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, would dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thus if under the law, Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act are not applicable to the claim of the petitioner, the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, could not take a view that the said provisions under Section 12 of the Act were applicable to the claim of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, a plain look at the application of the petitioner dated 21-9-98 filed before the District Magistrate and Collector and the representation of the petitioner dated 4-1-99 submitted to the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, would show that the petitioner's grievance was that on account of drawing of high tension electric line over his land he was prevented from raising any structure on the land or plant any trees under the said electric wire and within 20Ft of each side of the said electric line and that he was entitled to compensation of 1 lakh per kani whereas the Department had offered a paltry sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation, The petitioner's claim for compensation was for Inconvenience caused to him due to drawal of high tension wire over his land and Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, quoted above, would show that a licensee shall in exercise of powers conferred under the Act, cause as little damage, detriment and inconvenience as may be, and shall make full compensation for any damage, detriment and inconvenience caused by him or by any one employed by him. Thus the grievance of the petitioner is that no compensation has been paid on account of inconvenience caused to him and only a paltry sum of Rs. 2000/- was offered as damages for the trees that had been cut and felled from the land in question. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act provides that where any difference or dispute arises as to the amount of the application of such compensation the matter has to be determined by arbitration. Section 52 of the Act further provides that when any matter is by or under the Act, directed to be determined by arbitration, the matter shall, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in the license of the licensee, be determined by such person or persons as the State Government may nominate in that behalf on the application of either party. Since under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, the dispute between the petitioner and the State respondents with regard to the claim of compensation has to be determined by arbitration, the matter will now have to be determined by such person or persons as the State Government may nominate in that behalf on the application of either party.

7. For the reasons stated above, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner will file an application along with a certified copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition including its annexures before the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Power, and within one month from the date of receipt of said documents from the petitioner, the said Secretary will refer the matter for arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19 and 52 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

8. There shall be no order as to costs.