Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010019862016 2025:GAU-AS:3932 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4038/2016 MRINAL JYOTI DAS and ANR. S/O LT. BHABEN CHANDRA DAS 2: BHANUMOTI DAS W/O LT. BHABEN CHANDRA DAS BOTH ARE R/O CHANDANPUR BARPETA ROAD W/NO.8 P.O. and P.S. BARPETA ROAD PIN-781315 DIST- BARPETA ASSA VERSUS STRUCK OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 22.05.2019 ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. 2:POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR 6TH FLOOR MONAL TOWER DISPUR GHY-6 DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE ASSTT. MANAGER POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CIVIL SDO ROAD MILANPUR DIST- KAMRUP -781325 ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 4:THE JT. ENGINEER POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CIVIL SDO ROAD MILANPUR DIST- KAMRUP -781325 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MRB KAUSHIK, MR.G BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S K MEDHIR, MR.S DUTTA(R- 2-4),MR.J DAS(R- 2-4),SC, POWER GRID,MR.A DAS(R- 2-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 02.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. J. Daimary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. J. Baishya, learned counsel for the respondent Assam Power Grid Corporation of India being the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The learned counsel for both the parties submit that this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of order dated 03.08.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 648/2016 as the facts and pleadings are similar. 2. The petitioners are all farmers by profession and they earn their livelihood by means of cultivation over their respective plots of land. In the month of December, 2013, certain persons had approached the petitioners by informing them that the authorities intend to take up a project for construction of 400 KV POWERGRID BAL-BNG line. The petitioners were accordingly informed that for the purpose of installation of the aforesaid over head line, certain towers would be erected over the lands of the petitioners. But for all other purpose, the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed by such installation of the over head line. Page No.# 3/4 3. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the aforesaid towers being erected and the overhead line being installed, the petitioners have not been paid any compensation for the damage that had been caused to their respective plots of land. The petitioners accordingly wrote a letter dated 05.01.2016 to the respondent No.3 seeking the required compensation. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition had been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the 400 KV POWERGRID BAL-BNG line installed over the plots of land of the petitioner or in the alternative, for a direction to the respondents to pay the appropriate compensation to the petitioners. 4. It is also stated by the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India in their affidavit dated 27.06.2019 that some assessment as regards the compensation had been made by the respondent authorities and to that effect the petitioners have been issued notices. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no such notices had been received by the petitioners nor any compensation has been paid to them. 5. Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 inter-alia provides that, in the event of there being any dispute of compensation payable to any land owner resulting from erection of a tower for installing an overhead electricity line, the appropriate authority to determine such compensation would be the concerned District Judge having jurisdiction over the matter. 6. In such view of the matter, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India that in the instant case also, the appropriate forum to take up the case for payment of compensation to the petitioners would be the concerned learned District Judge having jurisdiction over the matter. 7. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of Page No.# 4/4 with a direction that firstly the petitioners shall make themselves available in the office of the respondent No.2 and on being present, the respondent authorities shall provide the petitioners with a copy of the earlier notices, by which certain amounts of compensation were offered to them. In the event, the petitioners are satisfied with such compensation, the respondent authorities shall within a period of seven days thereafter pay the required compensation to the petitioners. In the event, the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation offered in the notices, the petitioners would approach the learned District Judge of the concerned jurisdiction u/s 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and upon being so approached, the learned District Judge shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and determine the compensation payable to the petitioner. 8. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant