-1- 2025:CGHC:20430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 912 of 2018 KSK Mahandadi Power Company Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Chhedilal Kushwaha, Senior Manager, K S K Water Infrastructure Private Ltd., Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh , District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Pyarelal Dubey S/o Dwarika Prasad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board -2- 05.05.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner Company from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09/07/2018 passed in MJC No.03/2018 by learned District Judge, Janjgir- Champa (CG) (Annexure P-1) by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner Company for payment of compensation to the Respondent No.1. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2) The facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company entered into an agreement with the State Government for the supply of water to the Power Plant of the petitioner Company, and a pump house was installed on the bank of the Mahanadi River at Village Basantpur, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. B. The petitioner company established a 33 KV transmission line from its power plant at Village Nariyara to the pump house for the purpose of electricity transmission. C. A part of this transmission line passes over the land belonging to respondent No. 1, bearing survey No. 2094/50 acre, Patwari Halka -3- No. 15, situated at village Nariyara. D. The State Government issued guidelines dated 20.02.2015 for payment of compensation in cases involving the erection of high- power transmission lines of 132 KV or more, particularly in cases of damage to crops or other property. E. It is also pleaded that permission for an electric supply of 33 KV was granted by the Chief Electrical Inspector Government (CEIG) vide letter dated 4.07.2014. F. It is further submitted that there is no provision under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or the Electricity Act for payment of compensation in such cases. Nevertheless, an amount of Rs 10,000 was paid to respondent No.1. It is also stated that in the circular dated 29.11.2016 of the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, it is stated that compensation would be payable for the erection of high tension line of 66 KV and upwards. It is also pleaded that no objection was raised by respondent No. 1 when the compensation amount of Rs 10,000 was paid. G. Later, an application was moved by respondent No. 1 before the Collector, which was rejected on 16.11.2015 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1249 of 2016 was filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2015, and the said order was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Collector, who after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, computed the compensation amount to Rs 22,134.00 and directed the petitioner to make payment. H. The petitioner company filed an application under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Judge against the order dated 22.01.2018 and it was dismissed vide order dated 9.07.2018. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the circular -4- issued by the State Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 20.02.2015, the petitioner was not required to pay compensation to respondent No. 1 because the transmission line in question was only of 33 KV and according to guidelines, compensation would be payable for transmission of high tension line of 66 KV or above. He contended that the orders passed by the learned Collector dated 22.01.2018 and the learned District Judge dated 09.07. 2018 are contrary to the circulars dated 20.02.2015 and 29 November 2016. Therefore, he prayed that the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned District Judge may be quashed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and argued that the Collector passed the order pursuant to an order passed in WPC No. 1249 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016, whereby the matter was remitted back to the Collector for the determination of compensation. He submitted that the order dated 02.11.2016 was never challenged by the petitioner and it attained finality. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 6) Indisputably, part of land belonging to respondent No. 1 was used for the erection of a high power transmission line and tower. An application was moved by respondent No. 1 before the Collector, which was rejected on 16.11.2015 on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1249 of -5- 2016 was filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2015, and the said order was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Collector, who after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, computed the compensation to the tune of Rs 22,134.00 and directed the petitioner to make payment. 7) Vide order dated 02.11.2016, the Co-Ordinate Bench in the matter of P. L. Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in para 2, 3, 4 observed as under:- “2. In the matter of Santosh Kumar Rathore & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. {W.A. No.169/2013} together with other connected writ petitions, decided by this Court on 12.04.2013, it has been held by this Court in para 6 to 8: “6. Proviso to rule 3(1) of the Rules provides that, on the objection raised by an owner or an occupier of any building or land, the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or any other authorised may stay any work or ask the work to be removed or altered. He could also fix compensation under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 {rule 3(2)} of the Rules. 7. The Owners – Occupiers have raised question of fact. This can be raised under proviso to rule 3(1) of the Rules. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that they should raise it first before the authority entitled to consider it. Proviso to rule 3(1) provides three different officers. There is nothing to show as to who has been authorised and as the District Magistrate is the incharge of the district, it would be appropriate that the Owners – Occupiers may file a representation before the District Magistrate of the concerned district. 8. In view of the above, the representations may be filed before the concerned District Magistrate and in case such representations are filed, then they may be decided by the concerned District Magistrate by a speaking order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representations. The Owners- Occupiers will file certified copy of this order; other necessary documents and duly stamped self- -6- addressed envelope along with their representations. The concerned District Magistrate after taking decision will communicate the same to them.” 3. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench, the Collector/District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa has committed an error of jurisdiction by refusing to entertain the application for determination of amount of compensation. 4. For the foregoing, the impugned order passed by the Collector/District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa on 16.11.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector for determination of compensation. The District Magistrate shall complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.” 8) From a perusal of the documents, it appears that vide order dated 22.01.2018, the Collector pursuant to the order passed in WPC No. 1249/2016, directed the petitioner to make payment of compensation of Rs.22,134.00 to respondent No.1. The petitioner herein challenged the said order by filing MJC No.03/2018 before the learned District Judge but same was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2018. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that orders passed by the Collector and the learned District Judge are contrary to the circulars issued by the State Government, is not acceptable solely on the ground that the Collector passed the order of payment compensation to the respondent No. 1 pursuant to the order passed in WPC No.1249/2016 dated 02.11.2016 and that order was never challenged by the petitioner thus it attained finality. 9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 09.07.2018 passed by the -7- learned District Judge. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim