1 2026:CGHC:10697 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 399 of 2025  Deputy General Manager Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Taga, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. Ganesh Ram Yadav S/o Late Rathram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Taga, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MCC No. 181 of 2026  Ganesh Ram Yadav S/o Late Rathram Yadav Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Taga, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya , Atal Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Land Acquisition Officer Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy General Manager Power Grid Corporation Of India Limited, Taga, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) REVP No. 399 of 2025 For Review Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 2 : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government Advocate & 3 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.03 10:41:54 +0530 2 MCC No. 181 of 2026 Office Reference for extension of time Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.03 .2026 REVP No. 399 of 2025 1. The instant review petition has been filed for modification of order dated 23.06.2025 passed in WPC No. 2879 of 2020. 2. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate appearing for the review petitioner/ Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. would submit that due to inadvertence submission was made that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable according to the provisions of Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885(for short “Act, 1885”). He would submit that actually the writ petitioner had remedy to approach Collector according to the provisions of Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short “Act, 1894”). He would submit that modification requires in para 4 and para 7 of order passed in WPC No. 2879 of 2020 dated 23.06.2025. 3. Ms. Anuradha Jain, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Shukla. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Chatterjee would submit that writ petition was disposed of on submission made by review petitioner, therefore, review petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It appears that the land of the writ petitioner was acquired by the State for Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. and WPC No. 2879 of 2020 was filed claiming therein interest on amount of compensation. Land oustee had remedy to approach Collector according to the provisions of Section 34 of 3 Act, 1894, but due to mistake liberty was granted to approach the authority according to the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act, 1885. The mistake appears to be bonafide, and therefore, the prayer made by Mr. Vaibhav Shukla is hereby allowed. In para 4 and para 7, instead of Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be substituted. 7. This order shall be part of order passed in WPC No. 2879 of 2020. 8. It is informed that the writ petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the District Judge as per provisions of Telegraph Act, 1885. The writ petitioner would be at liberty to withdraw said appeal and would be at liberty to prefer application/petition according to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. If the petitioner prefers an application according to the provisions of Act, 1884 before the Collector. It is expected that said authority shall decide it expeditiously. MCC No. 181 of 2026 10. This MCC has been preferred for extension of time. 11. As the liberty has already granted to the writ petitioner to withdraw appeal preferred by him pending before the District Judge, there is no need to pass any order for extension of time to decide the pending appeal. Accordingly, instant MCC is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant