Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010110072022 2026:GAU-AS:10898 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3952/2022 MOTI LAL SIPANI S/O LATE J. L. SIPANI, R/O SIPANI NIWAS HARIPPATY, P.O.-TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM-784001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (AN UNDERTAKING DULY INCORPORATED ACT) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN 3:THE CHIEF MANAGER NERPSIP PROJECT (NORTH EASTERN REGION POWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT) POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. MAZGAON TEZPUR-784001 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (EARLIER DGM) APDCL TEZPUR DIST-SONITPUR PIN-784001 5:ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD. (AN UNDERTAKING DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BIJULEE BHAWAN Page No.# 2/7 PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH, MR. A DHANUKA,MR. A GANGULY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, SC, AEGCL,MR. A BORUA (r-5),MS. P BHATTACHARYA,MR. T J MAHANTA,MR A DAS, SC, PGCIL (R-3),MR B DEORI, GA, ASSAM (R-1),MR K P PATHAK, SC, APDCL (R-2,4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 05.08.2026 Heard Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N C Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3; Mr. K P Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 and Ms. A Phukan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5. 2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner along with one Mr. Avinash Bajaj, were the joint owners of a plot of land admeasuring 5 Bighas, covered by Dag Nos. 238 & 239 of PP No. 26 situated at Batamari, Mouza- Mahabhairab, in the district of Sonitpur, Assam. 3. The Respondent No. 4 purchased from the Petitioner and Page No.# 3/7 Mr. Avinash Bajaj, a plot of land admeasuring 3 kathas, covered by Dag No. 238 of PP No. 26 situated at Batamari, Mouza- Mahabhairab in the district of Sonitpur, Assam by a registered Sale Deed dated 05.09.2013. Pursuant to the said purchase, the Respondent No. 4 bounded the said land with boundary walls. It is contended by the Petitioner that the land sold to the Respondent No. 4 was bounded on 3 (Three) sides by the land of the Petitioner and Mr. Avinash Bajaj. 4. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 26.09.2017, purchased the share of Mr. Avinash Bajaj, and the Petitioner therefore, became the sole owner of the remaining land of 4 bighas 2 kathas. 5. The case of the Petitioner herein, is that the Respondent No. 4 had put 9 (Nine) Nos. of RCC post inside the Petitioner’s plot of land and 5 (Five) Nos. of RCC post outside his land, which had adversely effected the use of the land of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted various communications to the Respondent No. 4. However, the Respondent No. 4 had not taken any action. It is under such circumstances that the Petitioner had approached this Court by filling the present Writ Petition. Page No.# 4/7 6. The records reveal that this Court, vide an order dated 15.06.2022 issued notice. The Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 5 have filed the Affidavits-in-Opposition. The Petitioner has also filed a rejoinder. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Upon hearing the counsels, this Court had put a specific query upon Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner is more interested on the compensation from the Respondent authorities or whether the Petitioner insists upon removal of the RCC pillars which are inside the Petitioner’s land as well as the other pillars which are effecting the Petitioner’s use of the land. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that on the basis of these pillars which have been erected by the Respondent No. 4 transmission lines have been erected thereupon, and it would not be in public interest to seek the recovery of possession of the said land by removing those pillars. The learned counsel further submitted that the Petitioner be granted the due compensation as per law. 8. Taking into account the above, this Court finds it relevant Page No.# 5/7 to take note of the Assam Electricity Works of Licensees Rules, 2019 (for short ‘the Rules of 2019’) which have been notified vide the Notification dated 03.06.2019. A perusal of the Rules of 2019 stipulates the manner in which the licensee is required to carry out the work. It further stipulates that if there is any transgression to those Rules by the licensee, full compensation for any loss or damage incurred by reasons thereof could be paid to the person effected as may be determined by the District Magistrate or the Parties concerned. Furthermore, if differences and/or disputes arise as to the amount of compensation determined, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission within a period of 30 (Thirty) days. Rule 13 and Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 being relevant are reproduced hereinunder : Rule – 13: Determination and payment of compensation to affected persons. (1) Where the licensee makes default in complying with any of the provisions of these rules, he shall make full compensation for any loss or damage incurred by reason thereof to the person affected, as may be determined by the District Magistrate or by parties concerned. (2) Where any difference and dispute arises as to the amount of compensation determined under sub-rule (1), the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission. Rule – 15: Determination of dispute or difference by the Appropriate Commission. When a matter is brought to the Appropriate Commission for determination under these rules, the matter shall be determined by the Appropriate Commission within a period of thirty days and after hearing the parties concerned. 10. It is the opinion of this Court that the Rules of 2019 Page No.# 6/7 provided an adequate and efficacious remedy to the Petitioner whereby, the compensation can be determined and if there is a dispute, the same can be resolved within a quick span of time by the Appropriate Commission. 11. Accordingly, this Court, taking into account the allegations contained in the Writ Petition that the 9 (Nine) Nos. of RCC post belonging to the licensee are still within the Petitioner’s land and the erection of further 5 (Five) post have effected the use of the Petitioner’s land and the transgression so alleged being continuing, is of the opinion that the Petitioner as well as the Respondents should endeavour to settle the disputes, in terms of Rule 13 and Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019, as quoted hereinabove. 12. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions : (i) The Respondent No. 2 & Respondent No. 4 are directed to take effective steps for redressal of the Petitioner’s grievances, in terms of the Rule 13 of the Rules of 2019 within the period of 60 (Sixty) days from the date on which the certified copy is served upon the Respondent No. 2. In the circumstance, there is a disagreement as regards the quantum of compensation and cannot Page No.# 7/7 be resolved amicably within a period of 60 (Sixty) days, the Parties would be at liberty to approach the District Commissioner, Sonitpur for determination of the compensation. The said determination of the compensation shall be carried out by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur within 3 (three) months from the date any of the Parties approach the District Commissioner, Sonitpur. (ii) If the Petitioner or the Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 are aggrieved by the determination of the compensation by the District Commissioner, Sonitpur, either of the parties would be at liberty to approach the Appropriate Commission in terms with Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 and the Appropriate Commission shall decide the same within the time prescribed in the said Rules of 2019. 13. The Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 shall rope in the Respondent No. 3 while carrying out the negotiations inasmuch as it is the Respondent No. 3 who would be providing the funds for payment of the compensation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant