) Muralidhar Agarwal vs ) Collector
2025 Latest Caselaw 6216 Ori

Orissa High Court

) Muralidhar Agarwal vs ) Collector on 24 June, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              WP(C) No.16962 of 2025

            1) Muralidhar Agarwal                     .....               Petitioners
            2) Roshanlal Agarwal                               Represented By Adv. -
                                                               Mr. Sidhartha Das

                                           -versus-
            1) Collector, Bargarh                      .....        Opposite Parties
            2) Odisha Power Transmission                       Represented By Adv. -
            Corporation Ltd. (OPTCL),                          Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal,
                                                               AGA
            Jharsuguda.
                                                               Mr. Bijay Kumar Dash,
                                                               Senior Advocate for the
                                                               O.P. No.2-OPTCL

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

                                         ORDER

24.06.2025 Order No.

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

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as Mr. Bijay Kumar Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to acquire the scheduled land of the Petitioners vide Plot No.476, Khata No. 229/42, Village- Budelbahal, Mouza- Budel Bahal, P.S.-Bheden Tahasil-Bhedcn, R.I. Circle- Gandaturum , under District- Bargarh in pursuant to Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act for construction of 220 KV Line with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to draw the line and make the construction for tower foundation on the edge side of the scheduled land.

4. The factual background of the present writ petition, in a nutshell, is that on 30.07.2018, a Notification was published by the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL for construction of 220 KV of DC Line from Katapalli to proposed grid substation "Kiakata", which includes the land belonging to the present Petitioners. Such notification has been published in the official gazette. While the matter stood thus, the authority concerned provided the land scheduled for construction of the electric tower, which includes the land belonging to the present Petitioners. Thereafter, without land acquisition of the property under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 and without acquiring the land by following the due procedure of law, the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL forcibly entered into the Petitioners' premises to raise construction for tower foundation for 220 KV DC Line to the proposed grid substation "Kiakata". Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the outset, contended that on 30.07.2018, the Opposite Party No.2-

OPTCL issued a Notification for construction of 220 KV of DC Line from Katapalli to proposed gird substation "Kiakata" which includes the details of the village it covered within the plan area meant for aforesaid construction. While executing the aforesaid work, they have erected electricity tower on the land which belongs to and stand recorded in the name of the Petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Petitioners have opposed the said construction on the ground that there is no notification in respect of the Petitioners' land for acquisition is provided and to get fair compensation on the basis of market value as per the Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the entire exercise of the work is illegal and without following the due procedure of law, and that taking the 220 KV Line in the middle of the big patch of land for which the Petitioners will be highly prejudice. He further submitted that if the Opposite Party No.2 is allowed to draw the 220 KV Line and erect a pole on the plot of the Petitioners, then it will cause inconvenience to the Petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that after notifying the Notification dated 30.07.2018 vide Annexure-1, the Senior General Manager (Construction), Zone-I, Bhubaneswar has not taken any steps for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and has failed to give proper compensation to the Petitioner. However, on the

basis of previous Notification dated 30.07.2018, the OPTCL is trying to grab the land of the Petitioners without following the due procedure of law.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the Collector, Bargarh is the Land Acquisition Officer for notifying the land for acquisition for the purpose of lying 220 KV Line to the proposed site of Kiakata. Hence, the act of OPTCL Officials is completely illegal and without following the due procedure of law to acquire the land.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that since the patch of the land of the Petitioners is adjoining to the nearby Highway, which is a very valuable land, the OPTCL authorities should have drawn the line on one side of the land of the Petitioners and not in the middle of the land which will spoil the whole patch of land and, thus, the land would become worthless and unusable for the Petitioners.

10. It was also contended that the land belonging to the present Petitioners have 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 Petitioners is absolutely illegal. Therefore, the Opposite Parties be directed not to acquire the scheduled land of the Petitioners without following due procedure of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 and to draw the overhead line and make the construction for tower

foundation on the edge side of the scheduled land.

11. Referring to the provisions contained in the Telegraph Act, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL, contended that due procedure has been followed to draw the overhead electric line. Further, referring to the provisions contained in the Telegraph Act, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2- OPTCL contended that since the project that is being carried out by the Opposite Parties No.2 in the larger interests of the public and in view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid sections, it is not open to the Petitioners to 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 in the Telegraph Act itself.

12. In the context of non-payment of compensation, Mr. Dash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 -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.

13. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the prayer made in the present writ petition, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.2-OPTCL contended that the main grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ petition is the non-payment of compensation amount to the Petitioners. He further contended that in the entire writ petition the Petitioners have laid emphasis on the fact that they have been deprived of their 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.

14. On the conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, the corollary effect indicates that it is obligatory on the part of the

authorities to determine and pay the compensation to the interested or affected person whose property is used and utilized for the purposes indicated under Section 10 of the said Act and in the event any dispute over the said quantum is raised, such dispute would be determined by the District judge on an application to be made by such person.

15. In a recent order in Bijay Kumar Sahu and others v. State of Odisha and others (W.A. No.699 of 2025 decided on 01.05.2025) a Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that for compensation, the Petitioners shall have to approach the competent authority first under Section-10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

16. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual and legal background of the present issue, the present writ petition is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the competent authority for grant of compensation. In the event the Petitioners approach the competent authority, the competent authority would determine the compensation and shall pay the same to the Petitioners within a period of two months, if the Petitioners are entitled to the same. In the event the Petitioners are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, it is open to the Petitioners to make an application before the District Judge, as contemplated under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, on such approach, if any, made, this Court expect that the dispute would be

resolved in accordance with law and at the earliest.

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

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis