Smt. Sumita Bhagat (Kujur) vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2792 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                      W.P.(C) No. 1182 of 2020

       Smt. Sumita Bhagat (Kujur)                            .... .. ... Petitioner
                                Versus
       Union of India & Ors.                                 .. ... ... Respondents
                                  ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the respondent nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate ......

08/ 21.07.2022.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has submitted, that petitioner- Smt. Sumita Bhagat (Kujur) has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents under proviso (d) of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 for payment of compensation with respect to the land of the petitioner of Khata No.159, Plot No.155 and Plot No.151 of Khata No.165, both Thana No.334, Village- Sarwal under P.O. Tetri, Namkum and P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi, in lieu of commercial use and possession for the purpose of erection and construction of 400 K.V. double circuit Ranchi- Raurkela transmission line by the Power Grid Corporation of India, Namkum Grid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has further submitted that petitioner has purchased the land from Jagarnath Kujur, S/o Late Ledwa Kujur vide Registered Sale Deed dated 02.04.2019 and from Smt. Manorma Diggi, W/o Sri Jatinder Diggi vide Sale Deed dated 03.09.2019 and land has also been mutated in favour of the petitioner, but it appears that no compensation as envisaged under proviso (d) of Section 10 of the said Act, 1985 has been paid to the Jagarnath Kujur or Smt. Manorma Diggi, as such, respondent- Power Grid Corporation of India Limited is duty bound to pay the same under proviso (d) of Section 10 of the said Act, 1885.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha has submitted, that the legal remedy lies before the concerned, District Judge, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Century Textiles and Industries Limited & Ors. reported in (2017) 5 SCC 143, para 26 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:- "26) These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No.10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the concerned District Judge for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out at this stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated October 15, 2015 in

this behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail the remedy as per the said guidelines."

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 08.01.2019 in the case of Raj Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.926 of 2016, paras 7 and 8 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"7.In view of the such provision there is no dispute that the land is to be taken but not its title rather the only users right taken to the Transmission Company for that the compensation is required to be paid to be determined by the concerned District Judge of the concerned District. The same issue failed for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors. (supra) wherein at Paragraph-25.

8. In view of the provisions of the statute as referred hereinabove and the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles & Industries Limited & Ors. (supra) particularly the petitioner's claim for removal of the tower said to be installed in his land, is not worth to be considered. However the grievance related to the petitioner for compensation if permissible, is fit to be adjudicated. Therefore applying the principle laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (supra) this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach before the concerned District Judge for the adjudication of the claim of compensation which shall be considered by the concerned District Judge after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law."

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha has further submitted, that whatever the legal remedy lies before the District Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has submitted that he has filed rejoinder. However, the aforesaid judgment of Civil Appeal 10951 of 2016 is not applicable in the present case, as the same judgment passed by the Apex Court is in analogous matter, where both parties have assailed the same before the Apex Court with respect to dispute question. Here it is the case, in view of the proviso of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and there is no dispute that the lands belongs to the petitioner and the respondents- Power Grid Corporation of India Limited cannot take title over the land rather as per proviso

(d) of Sections 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited has to pay charge for user of the land and damage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has further submitted, that if Jagarnath Kujur and Smt. Manorma Diggi have been paid any compensation by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited then, certainly the petitioner has no right for asking for the same. But if, no payment has been made

to those vendors, the petitioner, who steps in the shoe of the vendor is entitled for compensation for right to use of the land by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has further submitted, that so far the litigation before the District Judge is concerned, it is only when there is dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation, which has to be adjudicated under Section 16 of the Act. If the admitted position is that the land of the petitioner has been used by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited without paying any money to the vendor of the petitioner, the petitioner steps into the shoe of the vendor and is legally entitled for the same, as such, this Court may pass necessary direction in this regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey has further submitted, that in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Apex Court, which was passed in analogous matter, where both the sides have approached the Apex Court and there was dispute but in the present case there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of land as the petitioner has purchased the land from Jagarnath Kujur and Smt. Manorma Diggi, which is being used by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited without paying any compensation for use of the land to Jagarnath Kujur or Smt. Manorma Diggi, as such, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited is duty bound under proviso (d) of Sections 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to pay the same and if the petitioner will be dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation, he will invoke the jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited is directed to file an affidavit, whether respondent has paid the said amount to the previous owner, Jagarnath Kujur and Smt. Manorma Diggi or whether they have given any written note with regard to waiving of their right. Unless there is no dispute that aforesaid land is being utilized, why the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited without paying any compensation to the rightful claimant under proviso (d) of Section 10 of the said Act, 1885, is using the land. Let affidavit must be filed by 04.08.2022.

Put up this case on 10.08.2022 under the same heading.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.