Manikant Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1538 of 2025

¶5

1 - Manikant Agrawal S/o Late Shri Budhprakash Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o Vill- Korbi, Tah.- Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), (Petitioner Father Name Wrongly Mention On P/3 Page No.-17)

¶6

VISHAKHABEOHAR Digitallysigned byVISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶7

2 - Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Budhprakash Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Vill- Korbi, Tah.- Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), (Petitioner Father Name Wrongly Mention On P/3 Page No.-17)

¶8

3 - Krishna Kant Agrawal S/o Late Shri Budhprakash Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill- Korbi, Tah.- Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), (Petitioner No.-3 Name Wrongly Mention At P/1 And P/2 Page No.-12 And 14), (Petitioner Father Name Wrongly Mention On P/3 Page No.-17)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Land Acquisition, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Collector Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) (Land Acquisition) Janjgir, DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶14

4 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director, Project

¶15

2

¶16

Implementation Unit, Bilaspur, Dist.Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Dist.Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

6 - General Manager National Thermal Power Corporation, Seepat, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶20

For Petitioner :-	Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
For State :-	Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L.
For Respondent No.	4 :- Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate
For Respondent No.	5 :- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.	6 :- Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate

¶21

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

02.04.2025

¶24

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶25

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Courtmay please to allow this petition and issue writ of MANDAMUS quashing/set-aside the impugned notices dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) and notices dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-2).

¶26

s10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may please to Quash / set aside the entire proceeding initiated for erection of tower and laying over of transmission lines over the land of the petitioners. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may please to direct the concerned respondent authority to demarcate

¶27

3

¶28

the land of the petitioners, to mark the total area affected under the electrical tower and the transmission line corridor as per the Guideline dated 14.06.2024 issued by the Government of India Ministry of Power and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) taking into consideration all the affecting factor.

¶29

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favor of the petitioners.”

¶30

By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the illegal and arbitrary action on part of the respondent authorities whereby impugned notices dated 30.01.2025 and 22.01.2025 have been issued by the respondent No. 03/ Authorized Officer (Land Acquisition)/ Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jangir, Dist- Janjgir Champa (C.G.), as per Annexure P-1 (collectively) & P-2 (collectively) wherein the ownership lands of the petitioners have been identified for erection of 132 KV Electrical Transmission Towers and laying over transmission lines for Bilaspur- Urga National Highway No. 130A and assessed the compensation for the land use, and now they are proceeding for execution of the same without following the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) enumerated in guidelines dated 14.06.2024 for payment of compensation in regard to right of way (RoW) for transmission lines, issued by Ministry of Power (Government of India). The impugned notices have been issued without obtaining any No Objection Certificate from the petitioners, without demarcation of

¶31

4

¶32

land in presence of the petitioners, without proper assessment of the damages as per applicable guidelines and in complete contravention to the procedure established by law and the petitioners have not been afforded with any opportunity of hearing, therefore there is a clear violation of Principle of natural justice. In the impugned notices, the area of land which will be used for installation of tower and transmission line/corridor has not been mentioned and it has also not been mentioned that upon which basis the compensation has been assessed, therefore, the impugned notices are arbitrary, illegal, improper and contrary to the law. Hence the instant petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without taking any consent, the electrical tower has been erected on his land and the compensation as required under the law has also not been awarded to the petitioner, hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that there is no necessity at all to hear the petitioners as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Sections 10 & 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, as such, the contention of the petitioners is not being heard and is not in accordance with law. Secondly, so far as compensation part is concerned, the compensation has already been calculated and Demand Draft is also ready, but the petitioners are not coming forward to accept the same, as such, it cannot be granted to the petitioners.

¶35

5

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5 have jointly submitted that the electricity connection through towers are of national importance, however, due to non-cooperation of the petitioner, it cannot be finalised. The villagers are raising objection due to which the work of electricity connection while erecting towers are heavily affected, as such, some protection order may be issued so that it may not be disturbed by the concerned villagers along with the petitioners.

¶37

Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not raising any objection in erection of the tower, however, the respondent authorities are required to give them adequate compensation in respect of erection of electrical tower on their land and the respondents are also required to follow the guidelines issued by the Central Government time to time.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have complied the guidelines issued by the Central Government strictly in accordance with law and they are not deviating from the same.

¶39

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the submissions made by the parties, the petitioners are directed to appear before the respondents No. 4 & 5 raising their grievances and, in turn, the respondents may consider and hear the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The compensation which has been calculated and has been kept in the office of respondent No. 3, the concerned Collector, is directed to be given to the

¶40

6

¶41

petitioners at the earliest. The petitioners are at liberty to approach before the appropriate authorities concerned, if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the amount of compensation.

¶42

With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ petition stands

¶43

disposed off.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge

¶46

Vishakha

Manikant Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Manikant Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishvanath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tikam Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samman Capital Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaleshwar Markandey Vs Chief Election Commissioner

Shushila Agrahari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heerabai Vs State of Chhattisgarh