The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.18738 of 2023 Rama Chandra Sahoo and others ..... Petitioners -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Represented By Adv. - Pravu Pityarthi Kumar Pandit Opposite Parties Mr. B.K. Das, Sr. Adv. for OPTCL CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 20.02.2025 Order No. 02. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party No.5-OPTCL. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ petition and issue Rule NISI calling Page 1 of 7. upon the Opp. parties to file show cause; i) Why the notification Nos notifications No. 173, No. 174 (8) dated 25.1.2021 and letter No. 6531 dated 21.10.2021 under Annexure-1 series and Annexure-6 shall not be quashed. ii) Why shall not direction be issued opp. parties to install 220 KV line and tower in the alternative way/land available in nearby even on the side of the N.H. iii) Why shall not a direction be issued to opp.parties to follow the due procedure of law laid down under Section 10 of Telegraph Act (13 of 1885) provision of Sub Rules (1) (2) and (3) Rule 3 of the Works of license Rules 2006 and provision of land Acquisition Act prior to installation of 220 KV line and Tower And if the opp. parties fails to file show cause on files insufficient cause the Rule may be made absolute; And may be pleased to pass such any other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 4. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the notification dated 25.01.2021 and letter No.6531 dated 21.10.2021 under Annexure-1 & 6 respectively. Further, the Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to install 220 KV line and tower as per the alternative plan available near the side of the NH and for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to follow due procedure of law as has been laid down in Section 10 of the Telegraph Act as well as the provisions of Sub-Rule 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 3 of the Works of Licensees Rule, 2006 and Page 2 of 7. Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for installation of 220 KV line and tower. 5. The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ application in a nutshell is that the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the recorded owners of Hal Khata No. 71/174 corresponding to plot bearing No. 135/483 and No.135/484 measuring a total area of Ac 0.645 dec. situated in Mouza- Maligaon under Sadar Tahasil, Keonhar. So far the Petitioner No.4 is concerned, he is a recorded owner of Hal Khata No. 71/101 bearing plots No. 257/411 in Kisam Sarad-1 and Plot No. 257/415 in Kisam Gharabari, measuring area Ac 16 dec. situated in the aforesaid Mouza. Both the plots referred to hereinabove are adjacent to each other and in a comparative area. Further, it has been pleaded that the Petitioners of the aforesaid plots are Gharbari and the same are fit for construction of the building and are adjacent to the N.H. Similarly, Petitioner No.5 is having 5 plots, Petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are having 3 plots each, Petitioner No.8 is having 2 plots, Petitioner No.1 and 9 are having 5 plots measuring a total area of AC 3.680 dec in the very same Mouza and Tahsil. Also, Petitioner No.10 is having 1 plot and Petitioner No.11 is having 4 plots in the very same Mouza and Tahsil. 6.
Decision
In the writ petition it has been alleged that the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 8 are illegally and forcibly trying to occupy the land of the Petitioners for the purpose of installation of 220 KV lines above the Petitioners’ land, without knowledge and consent of the Petitioners. As a result of which, the Petitioners apprehend that they are likely to incur huge financial loss, along with damage to the property as well as the standing crops. Page 3 of 7. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 8 are trying to occupy the land of the present Petitioners, as has been narrated hereinabove, by force and are trying to raise construction over such land for installation of over head electric line. He further contended that no notice has been given to the Petitioners and no prior consent has been obtained from the Petitioners before such construction, as is mandatory under the relevant statute and rules. He further contended that the aforesaid activities of the Opposite Parties came to the knowledge of the present Petitioners from the local newspaper, although the specific details were not clear. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that public litigation of such notice is not a notice in the eye of law. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further alleged that a verification report was submitted by the Tahasildar, Keonjhar- Opposite Party No.4 to the Deputy General Manager, OPTCL- Opposite Party No.6 on 21.10.2021 without conducting any field verification. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Opposite Parties have been illegally permitted to forcibly occupy their land and the same may cause huge financial loss and deprivation of the property which stands recorded in the name of the present Petitioners. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further alleged that neither the land has been acquired nor has any compensation been paid to the Petitioners despite the fact that after installation of the aforesaid electric line the land would become valueless for the Petitioners and each of the Petitioner is likely to suffer financial loss to the extent of the land that has been recorded in their name. He further contended that although Page 4 of 7. government lands are available nearby the Petitioners’ land, however, the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 went ahead with the drawing of the 220 KV line over and above the land recorded in the name of the present Petitioners. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the said Opposite Parties specifically the averments of the Opposite Party No.5 as containing in Para-8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, contended that due procedure has been followed while drawing the overhead electric line. Further, referring to the provisions contained in the Telegraph Act, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 contended that since the project that is being carried out by the Opposite Party No.5 in the larger interests of the public and in view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Sections, the Petitioners cannot stop the construction work. However, in the event the Petitioners have not been paid suitable compensation it is open to them to raise their objection as per the procedure laid down provided in the Telegraph Act itself. 10. In the context of non-payment of compensation, Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 refers to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Debasis Mangaraj Vs. State of Odisha (WA No.1742 of 2023) disposed of vide judgment dated 31.07.2024. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court observes that the judgment dated 20.7.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge Bench in WP(C) No. 14578 of 2023 was under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Division Bench. While dismissing the writ application, learned Single Judge granted liberty to the Appellant to Page 5 of 7. take recourse to Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Being aggrieved by such orders, the Petitioners filed the above noted writ appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench after taking into consideration several judgments and on detailed analysis of the factual background of that case, has finally held that the Petitioners’ claims for compensation can be determined only in accordance with section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act and accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed. 11. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the prayer made in the present writ petition, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 contended that the main grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ appeal is non-payment of compensation amount to the Petitioners. He further contended that in the entire writ petition the Petitioners have laid emphasis at their being deprived of their properties as described in the body of the writ without being paid the appropriate and adequate compensation. On a careful analysis of the judgment of this Court by the Division Bench in the case of Debasish Mangaraj (supra) and further on analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the view that the factual background of both the cases are almost identical. 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual and legal background of the present issue, this Court is of the considered view that since the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Debasish Mangaraj (supra) has already laid down the law, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view than the one which has already been taken by the Division Bench. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed of in light of the judgment in Debasish Page 6 of 7. Mangaraj’s case (supra). Accordingly, the Petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent authority for grant compensation which would be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act. In the event the Petitioners approach the competent authority, the competent authority shall do well to consider the same as expeditiously as possible and redress the grievance of the Petitioners in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Feb-2025 14:58:34 Page 7 of 7.