Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010030932025 2025:GAU-AS:2134 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/564/2025 1: MONI RAM ROY AND ANR S/O - LATE DAMAN SING ROY VIIL- AND P.O- SIDLI DISTRICT- SIRANG, ASSAM 2: THIREN CH. ROY S/O- LATE DAMAN SING ROY VILL. AND P.O.- SIDLI DISTRICT- SIRANG ASSAM VERSUS 1: THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED , REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTION AREA, KATWARIA SARAI, NEW DELHI- 110016. 2:THE CHIEF MANAGER CONSTRUCTION POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE AND CTU COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-9 QUTAB INSTITUTION AREA KATWARIA SARAI NEW DELHI- 110016. 3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOER OF THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 6TH FLOOR MONAL TOWER G.S. ROAD OPPOSITE ASAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER OF POWER GIRD CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 6TH FLOOR MONAL TOWER G.S. ROAD OPPOSITE ASAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 5:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY THE REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAJALGAON CHIRANG PIN- 783385. Page No.# 2/5 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KAJAL GAON DISTRICT- CHIRANG PIN- 783385 Linked Case : W.A. No.1810 of 2025 (Filing Number) 1: MONI RAM ROY ANR ANR MONI RAM ROY AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O - LATE DAMAN SING ROY VIIL- AND P.O- SIDLI DISTRICT- SIRANG ASSAM 2: THIREN CH ROY S/O - LATE DAMAN SING ROY VIIL- AND P.O- SIDLI DISTRICT- SIRANG ASSAM VERSUS 1: THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-9 QUTAB INSTITUTION AREA KATWARIA SARAI NEW DELHI -110016 For the Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Saikia, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Talukdar, Standing Counsel, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4. : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent No.5. : Mrs. R.B. Bora, Junior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.6 & 7. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 03.03.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) The matter comes upon for consideration of the interlocutory application preferred by the applicants/ appellants with a prayer to condone the delay of 174 days in filing the connected writ appeal. The condonation application has not been seriously opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Page No.# 3/5 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the contents of the application, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the connected writ appeal. Hence, the interlocutory application is allowed. The delay of 174 days in filing the connected appeal is condoned. However, looking to the fact that a very short question is involved in this writ appeal, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to take up the connected writ appeal for final hearing at this stage. Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants has submitted that the District Magistrate prepared a report in favour of the applicants/appellants concluding that they are entitled for compensation in lieu of the damages caused to the land in connection with laying down a high voltage electricity line in Biswanath Chariali area. However, later on the Circle Officer has submitted a report that the applicants/appellants are not entitled for the compensation in question but the other 3(three) persons, namely, Debeswar Ray, Saiten Ray and Someswar Ray would be entitled for the compensation. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the grounds raised by the applicants/appellants in the writ petition in right perspective and has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The dispute is regarding payment of compensation in lieu of damages caused to the land for laying down a high voltage electricity line. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the other 3(three) persons had Page No.# 4/5 initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Civil Judge, Chirang passed a judgment & decree to the effect that the said 3(three) persons would be entitled for higher compensation. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the judgment & decree passed by the Civil Judge has also been duly complied with by the respondent Nos.1 to 4. However, the learned Single Judge has observed that since disputed questions have been raised in the writ petition, the same cannot be adjudicated in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, has opined that the applicants/appellants have alternate remedy to approach the concerned authority under the Indian Telegraph Act. The observations made by the learned Single Judge to this effect are reproduced hereunder:- “3. It is seen that a dispute had arisen as regards the payment of compensation to the Petitioners and as such the Chief Manager of the Respondent No.1 had requested the Circle Officer, Sidli, Chirang District to make necessary verifications as to whether the Petitioners herein would be entitled to the payment of compensation or as to whether the Shri Debeswar Ray, Shri Saiten Ray and Shri Someswar Ray on the other hand would be entitled to compensation. It is further seen that the Circle Officer, Sidli Revenue Circle had given a report on 24.06.2015 that the Petitioners herein would not be entitled to and on the other hand the said three persons namely Shri Debeswar Ray, Shri Saiten Ray and Shri Someswar Ray would be entitled to compensation. 4. This Court has also taken note of that these three persons have also initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and in that regard, the learned Civil Judge, Chirang had also passed a judgment and decree to the effect that the said three persons would be entitled to higher compensation. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that this judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Chirang have also been duly complied with by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Page No.# 5/5 5. Be that as it may, in the year 2023, the Petitioners have approached this Court seeking compensation on the ground that the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 has failed to pay the compensation. This Court is of the opinion that the question which have been raised in the instant writ petition are disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. It is also relevant to take note of that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 duly provides adequate remedy in terms with Section 10 of the said Act to make necessary claim if the person is entitled to and in the said forum disputed questions of facts can be very well adjudicated. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of facts. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Before parting with the records, this Court however observes that if the Petitioners are aggrieved as regards the non-payment of the due compensation, the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the Petitioner to avail the remedies available under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.” Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants and after going through the material available on record, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4346/2023. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The Registry is directed to register the connected writ appeal immediately and treat it as dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant