1 2025:CGHC:33360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3172 of 2016 • M/s Mahavir Energy And Coal Benefication Private Limited A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956 Having Its Registered Office At Mahavir Coal Corporation, 216, Shankar Nagar, Behind Park, Nagpur, Maharashtra, Through Its Director, Shri Upkar Rai, S/o Late Shri Krishnanand Rai, Aged About 32 Years, R/o R-8/19, Rama Valley, Raipur Road, Bodri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. versus 1. Shri Amar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, R/o Mahapali Road, Kharsiya, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. District Magistrate, District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Advocate. For respondent/State. : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 7-11- 2016 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Raigarh in Case No.01/B- 121/2013-14 whereby erection of tower for carrying overhead high tension 2 lines for transmission of electricity from power plant to sub-station Gharghoda, Raigarh, has been ordered to be removed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that (A) The petitioner established a 12 MW biomass fuel based power plant at Village Bhengari, Post Office Navapara, Tenda, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The electricity generated from the said power plant is to be supplied to the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). As far as the present disputed land is concerned, one Shri Naresh Agrawal accepted the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.1 lac, which was paid by the present petitioner after execution of the agreement. The entire transmission line was laid and duly commissioned. The plant has already started production in the year 09.11.2009 and the line stands energized. Thereafter on 10.12.2012, respondent No.1 preferred an application before the District Magistrate, Raigarh (respondent No.2) alleging that the petitioner had erected an electricity tower on the land belonging to respondent No.1 without his consent and without payment of any compensation. The said application was preferred after a lapse of 3 years since the tower had been erected on the said land. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 23.12.2013 rejected the said application directing that the petitioner shall make payment of adequate compensation to respondent No.1. (B) It is also case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner vide a cheque deposited a sum of Rs. 48,000/- towards compensation payable to the respondent No.1 on 13-2-2014 before SDO (Revenue), Gharghoda. However, respondent No.1 vide letter dated 20.02.2014 informed the SDO(R) that he had preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission and, therefore, respondent No.1 refused to accept the said compensation amount, which was deposited before the SDO(R). However, the learned Regulatory 3 Commission vide order dated 09.10.2014 remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration. It was thereafter that respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings and vide order dated 07.11.2016 held that the tower was erected on the land of the respondent No. 1 without his consent and, therefore, the said tower was directed to be removed. ( C ) Further case of the petitioner is that the towers were erected after due permission from the competent authorities and after payment of adequate compensation to Shri Naresh Agrawal (uncle of the respondent No.1) on behalf of the respondent No.1 and thereafter the tower was erected. Respondent No. 1 did not raise any objection for 3 years while the lines were laid and transmission had begun. It was only after a period of lapse of more than 3 years that objections were raised before the District Magistrate alleging that adequate compensation was not being paid. Even according to the Rules, the respondent No.1 was entitled for payment of adequate compensation and despite the fact that an amount of Rs.1 lac paid to the uncle of the respondent No.1 on his behalf the petitioner with his bonafides deposited the assessed amount of Rs.48,000/- as was done by the SDM(R). Despite the deposit of the said amount by the petitioner, respondent No.1 objected to accept the same and refused to take it. Thereafter, the learned District Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2016 directed that the overhead line be removed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the learned District Magistrate failed to consider that alteration and removal of a electricity tower is a very drastic step and the same shall be resorted to only in a very critical circumstance. Respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong at the sheer prejudice of the petitioner. The primary attempt on part of the District Magistrate ought to ensure payment of proper and adequate compensation to the owner / occupier of the land for the loss suffered. He would further submit that the power to direct for alteration 4 of the transmission line is only in a case where there is a serious safety or a health issue and not otherwise and would pray for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.11.2016 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.01/B-121/2013-14. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that the petition is not maintainable since the order passed by the respondent No.2 is revisable under Rule 3 of the Works of Licensee Rules 2006 before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, which is further appealable before the Appellate Tribunal at Delhi. He would further submit that the petitioner without exhausting existing remedy available to him of filing a revision application before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, has filed the present petition before this Court, therefore, the petition is not maintainable, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. He would further submit that the respondent No.1 moved an application before respondent No.2 for removal of illegal tower carrying high tension lines installed by the petitioner on the commercially diverted valuable and of respondent No.1. which was dismissed vide order dated 23-12-2013 (Annexure P/6) by respondent No.2. This order was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing revision petition before the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 3 of the Works of Licensee Rules 2006 The learned Commission .after detailed hearing vide its order dated 18-9-2014 set aside the order of respondent No.2 and remitted the mater back to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order. He would further submit that the petitioner has erected the tower on the land of the respondent No.1 without obtaining his permission, therefore, the tower has rightly been directed to be removed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any any relief and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. From perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record by the petitioner as well as by respondent No.1, it is quite vivid that the inter se dispute of title of the property is involved in this case which can be very well adjudicated by the competent court having jurisdiction to decide the dispute and even otherwise no fundamental right of the respondent No.1 is adversely affected. 7. Accordingly, impugned order dated 7-11-2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside and this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondent No.1 to file a civil suit before the appropriate forum, if so advised, for declaration of title over the land where the tower has been erected. 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.07.21 13:52:49 +0530