Erection of a mobile transmission tower on the plaintiff's land without permission : Effect
Himachal Pradesh High Court Rules in Favor of Landowner in Unauthorized Mobile Tower Case. ourt Awards Compensation and Injunction Against BSNL for Tower Erected Without Permission
In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled in favor of the legal representatives of Shri Nar Dass, awarding them use and occupation charges for a mobile transmission tower erected by Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) without permission on their land. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Satyen Vaidya, J., on October 13, 2025, overturned previous decisions by the lower courts and marked a victory for the appellants.
The appellants, represented by Mr. Raman Sethi, contended that BSNL had erected a transmission tower on their land in Khasra No. 71, instead of the intended Khasra No. 70, which was leased to them. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, citing non-examination of the plaintiff and failure to quantify use and occupation charges. However, the High Court found these grounds untenable, emphasizing that the plaintiff was adequately represented by a power of attorney holder, who provided substantial evidence.
The court's judgment acknowledged that the tower was indeed erected on the appellant's land, as confirmed by a Local Commissioner's report. Despite BSNL's objections, the report was upheld, and the court ruled that the appellants were entitled to Rs. 1800 per month from December 1, 2010, along with 6% annual interest as compensation for unauthorized use of their land.
Furthermore, the court decreed a mandatory injunction directing BSNL to remove the tower unless they chose to negotiate continued use under agreed terms. The judgment also dismissed BSNL's argument regarding the non-joinder of the owner of Khasra No. 70 as a necessary party, emphasizing that no relief was sought against them.
This decision not only grants financial compensation to the appellants but also upholds their property rights, setting a precedent for similar cases involving unauthorized constructions. Legal experts view this ruling as a reinforcement of landowners' rights, especially when large corporations are involved.
Bottom Line:
Erection of a mobile transmission tower on the plaintiff's land without permission entitles the plaintiff to use and occupation charges. Non-examination of the plaintiff as a witness is not an absolute ground for dismissal if a power of attorney holder adequately represents and provides material evidence.
Statutory provision(s): Evidence Act, 1872, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, H.P. Land Revenue Act.
Shri Nar Dass v. Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2793732
