Dismissed¶31

Bhikhari Das v. the Managing Director

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2026WPC/4637/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 4637 of 2022; decided 16/02/2026; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:8275 (NAFR); Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. Maintainability of writ petition seeking compensation for land beneath a High Tension Electric Line raised by Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.; alternative remedy under Section 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Judge; petition dismissed with liberty to apply for compensation and interest; Bhikhari Das v. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. & others.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petitioner granted liberty to move an application before the concerned District Judge under Section 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. ¶31

Bhikhari Das Vs the Managing Director — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.16 17:47:13 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:8275

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4637 of 2022

¶6

*** -** Bhikhari Das S/o Sukh Sagar Das Aged About 64 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Village - Jagmahant, Tahsil - Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Collector Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chief Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Nawagarh, Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5 - Land Acquisition Officer/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Sunder Lal Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents No. 2, 5 & 6 : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

16/02/2026

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“ 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in lieu of his acquired land, with interest from the date of entitlement, in accordance with law.

¶21

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to given other land to the petitioner in lieu of his acquired land, with interest from the date of entitlement, in accordance with law.

¶22

¶23

10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petitioner may be given.”

¶24

Ms. Laxmin Tondey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have raised High Tension Electric Line over land of the petitioner, but till date compensation has not been paid. She would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to make payment of compensation strictly in accordance with law.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Sunder Lal Sahu, learned Advocate and Mr. Pranjal Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respective respondents would submit that this petition is not maintainable as remedy lies somewhere else .

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

Section 16 (4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶28

“ 16(4) If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the telegraph authority may pay into the Court of the District Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall determine the persons entitled to receive the compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in which the persons interested are entitled to share in it.”

¶29

According to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Act of 1885, if there is any dispute with regard to amount of compensation, application lies before the concerned District Judge. The petitioner

¶30

¶31

should have moved an application before concerned District Judge claiming therein compensation and interest, if any, therefore, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable, accordingly dismissed . However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move application before the concerned District Judge according to provisions of 16 (4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶32

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

vatti

Bhikhari Das v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikhari Das v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Sonthaliya Vs Sanjay Agrawal

Yashvant Sawariya (Died and Deleted Through Lrs) Vs Poonamchand Agrawal

P. R. Naik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Heera Bai

Smt. Anju Tiwari Vs Mohd. Akram

Praveen Tiwari Vs Smt. Sunita Anant