Lalmohan Patra vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4475 Ori

Orissa High Court

Lalmohan Patra vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 28 February, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             WP(C) No.17201 of 2023
            Lalmohan Patra                 .....       Petitioner
                                                          Represented By Adv. -
                                                          Mr. Arjuna Charan
                                                          Behera

                                          -versus-
            State Of Odisha and others            .....         Opposite Parties
                                                          Represented By Adv. -

                                                          Mr. M.R. Patra, ASC

                                                          Mr. Bijay Kumar Dash,
                                                          Senior Advocate for
                                                          OPTCL.

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

28.02.2025 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Bijay Kumar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-OPTCL. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to stop construction of the electric tower work over his land.

4. The factual background of the present writ petition, in a nutshell, is that on 27.1.2024, a Notification was published by the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL for construction of electric

tower over the land belonging to the present Petitioner. Such notification has been published in the official gazette. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.4-Tahasildar, Keonjhar provided the land scheduled for construction of the electric tower, which includes the land belonging to the present Petitioner. Thereafter, although the electric tower has been constructed, however, the Petitioner has not been paid suitable compensation for utilization of the land by the Opposite Party No.2 for construction of the electric tower. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Opposite Party-OPTCL is drawing an electricity overhead wire which is running over the homestead land of the present Petitioner. For the aforesaid purpose, they have erected electricity tower on the land which belongs to the Petitioner and which is being used as a part of his homestead. He further contended that although the tower has been erected, however, the Petitioner has not been paid suitable compensation for construction of such electric tower on the land which belongs to the present Petitioner. He further submitted that as a result of construction of such tower, the nearby land belonging to the Petitioner has been rendered useless.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended

before this Court that the Opposite Parties are trying to occupy the land belonging to the present Petitioner, which is homestead in nature, for the purpose of installation of overhead electric transmission wire without the knowledge and consent of the present Petitioner. Further, referring to the relevant regulation, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties should have taken the consent of the present Petitioner before installing such electric tower on his land. Therefore, it was contended that such construction is absolutely illegal and without consent of the present Petitioner. Furthermore, since the tower has already been constructed by utilizing the land belonging to the present Petitioner, the Petitioner admits that he may not get suitable compensation for the loss of land, i.e. not only the land which has been notified also the adjoining land belonging to the present Petitioner, which has been rendered useless, as a result of construction of electric tower. He further alleged that prior to drawing the aforesaid electric line, no verification was conducted by the concerned authorities and also no intimation was given to the Petitioner and similarly situated other persons. It was also contended that the land belonging to the present Petitioner has not been acquired by the Opposite Parties before constructing the electric tower. Therefore, possession of the Opposite Party No.2 over the land belonging to the present Petitioner is absolutely illegal and, therefore, they are liable to be evicted. Learned counsel for the

Petitioner further argues that apart from losing a valuable piece of land, the Petitioner has also suffered huge financial loss.

7. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3-OPTCL, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the said Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, 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 Parties No.2 & 3-OPTCL contended that since the project that is being carried out by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 in the larger interests of the public and in view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid sections, it is not open to the Petitioner to stop the construction work. However, in the event the Petitioner has not been paid suitable compensation, it is open to him to raise his objection as per the procedure laid down in the Telegraph Act itself.

8. In the context of non-payment of compensation, Mr. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3-OPTCL 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 aforesaid writ application, learned Single Judge granted liberty to the Appellant to take recourse of 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.

9. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the prayer made in the present writ petition, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3-OPTCL contended that the main grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is the non-payment of compensation amount to the Petitioner. He further contended that in the entire writ petition the Petitioner has laid emphasis at him being deprived of his properties as described in the body of the writ petition 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.

10. 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 Mangaraj's case (supra). Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent authority for grant of compensation which would be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act. In the event the Petitioner approaches the competent authority, the competent authority shall do well to consider the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order and redress the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order.

11. It is further made clear that since the Petitioner has alleged that the land, which have been used for the purpose of construction of electric tower, has not been notified by the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL, such land has become useless, so far the present Petitioner is concerned and the Petitioner cannot use such land either for homestead or for agriculture purpose. Therefore, the Opposite Parties bound to pay compensation in respect of the land that has been rendered

useless. Accordingly, liberty is given to the Petitioner to raise the question of compensation in respect of those lands which have not been notified before the authority as has been directed in the previous paragraph. In such eventuality, the competent authority shall also consider the claim of the Petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis