The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.18860 of 2023 Santosh Kumar Maharana Petitioner Mr. K.K. Dash, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties Mr. YAP Babu, AGA Mr. M.R. Dhal, Advocate for O.P.No.4 …. WP(C) No.20789 of 2023 Sarat Kumar Lenka Petitioner Mr. K.K. Dash, Advocate …. -Versus-
Legal Reasoning
State of Odisha and Others Mr. YAP Babu, AGA Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, Advocate for O.P.No.4 Opposite Parties …. WP(C) No.20793 of 2023 Dillip Kumar Jena Petitioner Mr. K.K. Dash, Advocate …. -Versus- Opposite Parties State of Odisha and Others Mr. YAP Babu, AGA Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, Advocate for O.P. No.4 …. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 21.07.2023 Order No. 02. 1. Since a common cause of action is involved, all the writ petitions stand disposed of by the following order. Page 1 of 5 2. Instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the advertisement dated 10th August, 2015 and impugned action of the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.4 against their eviction from the schedule lands situate under respective plots in question without following due process of law and providing an opportunity to submit show cause and on such other grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the land owners and are in possession of the schedule lands since the time of their purchases and all of them having mutated the same in their favour and while claiming so, he refers to the copies of the Record of Rights. It is further submitted that the petitioners could learn about opposite party No.4 conducting survey in the locality to install towers and execute project of construction of 220 KV Double/Circuit transmission line from and to the proposed Grid Substations pursuant to a notification of the year 2015 preceded by general notification dated 10th June, 2015 in connection with which Annexure-2 was published. It is contended by Mr. Dash that if the above project is allowed to continue, it would render the petitioners homeless and they would be subjected to immense loss. Furthermore, according to the petitioners, the determination of compensation was initially arrived at the rate of five times of the current bench mark of the valuation as per the guidelines of the Orissa Stamp Rules, 1952 which was subsequently revised but such determination is not in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. While contending so, Mr. Dash placed reliance on a copy of the resolution of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Odisha dated 21st December, 2022 and also a letter of the Joint Secretary Page 2 of 5 (Trans.), Ministry of Power, Government of India dated 15th October, 2015, a copy which has been produced in the Court today. It is submitted that as per the guidelines of the Government of India, compensation @ 85% of the land value as determined by the District Magistrate or any other authority based on Circle rate/Guidelines value/Stamp Act rates for tower base area (between four legs) impacted severely due to installation of tower/pylon structure and towards diminution of land value in the width of Right of Way (RoW) Corridor due to laying of transmission line and imposing certain restriction would be decided by the States as per categorization/type of land in different places of States subject to a maximum of 15% of land value as determined based on such Circle rate/Guideline value/Stamp Act rates have not been considered by opposite party No.3. In essence, the contention is that the above guidelines have not been duly followed apart from the State Government’s Resolution dated 21st December, 2022. It is however fairly admitted by Mr. Dash that the compensation is payable to the petitioners (land owners) as per the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mr. Dhal and Mr. Pattajoshi, learned counsel for OPTCL besides Mr. Babu, learned AGA made the Court to go through the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, such as, Section 10 thereof and in particular, clause(d) which stipulates that the Telegraph Authority in the exercise of the power conferred shall do as little damage as possible and when it has exercised the powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause(c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of such powers. Section 16 of the said Act is cited which is with regard to exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 and disputes as to compensation and referring to sub-section (3) thereof, Page 3 of 5 it is further submitted that if any such dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation payable under Section 10(d), it shall, on an application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property situate, be determined by him. So therefore, having regard to the above provisions, it is lastly submitted that the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court instead of approaching the District Judge having jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation if at all any such grievance remains. 5. Having considered the submissions of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi & Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for OPTCL and Mr. Babu, learned AGA, the Court is of the considered view that if at all the petitioners are really aggrieved of the compensation so determined by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Cuttack-opposite party No.3 which has been so revised at the instance of opposite party No.4 and fixed as such so revealed from Annexure-A to the final order dated 6th February, 2019 in connection with Misc. Case No.68 of 2018 challenging the same to be not in conformity with the guidelines of the Government of India dated 15th October, 2015 of Ministry of Power and resolution of the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Orissa dated 21st December, 2022, they may approach the District Judge of the jurisdiction competent to decide the same. In other words, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions instead grants the liberty to the petitioners to approach the alternative forum since the quantum of compensation has been questioned by them which is rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. Page 4 of 5 7. In the result, the writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with the liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Judge having competent jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute with their compensation in terms of Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act and in the event, any such applications are received from them, the same shall be entertained for a final decision according to law. It is directed that till the time the applications are received from the petitioners which shall be within seven days from today, after providing an opportunity hearing to them and also opposite party No.4 besides the State, the concerned District Judge shall dispose it of as per and in accordance with law. It is further directed that till the time the applications are filed by the petitioners within the time stipulated, there shall be no coercive action taken against them vis-à-vis the subject matter in question. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 22-Jul-2023 15:10:22 Page 5 of 5