Disposed¶37

Subhashree Suchismita @ Sahoo v. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Optcl., Bbsr

Orissa HC7 Apr 2025WP(C)/4407/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: OPTCL; 220 KV transmission line; overhead electric line; agricultural land Plot No.331/429, Mouza-Bhubanpur, Tahasil-Balianta; forcible occupation without notice or consent; compensation; Section 16(3) Indian Telegraph Act 1885; Debasish Mangaraj v. State of Odisha WA No.1742 of 2023; writ petition disposed; liberty to approach competent authority; speaking and reasoned order within three months; interim order vacated; mandamus refused; Orissa High Court; Aditya Kumar Mohapatra.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority for grant of compensation under Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act; the competent authority to pass a speaking and reasoned order preferably within three months of production of certified copy; interim order, if any, vacated. ¶37

Subhashree Suchismita @ Sahoo Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, Optcl., Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether Opposite Party No.1 (OPTCL) is illegally and forcibly attempting to occupy the Petitioner's agricultural land for installation of 220 KV overhead electric lines without notice, consent, acquisition or compensation, warranting a writ of mandamus to vacate the land and pay compensation for damage. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of; no mandamus is issued and relief is confined to liberty to seek compensation under Section 16(3).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since the Division Bench in Debasish Mangaraj (supra) has already laid down the law and the factual backgrounds of the two cases are almost identical, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view, and the writ petition is disposed of in light of that judgment.

¶34

Key takeaways

The Petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent authority for grant of compensation, which shall be determined in accordance with Section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act.ratio¶34
On the Petitioners approaching the competent authority, it shall consider the claim expeditiously and redress the grievance in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Cuttack), W.P.(C) No.4407 of 2025, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J., order dated 07.04.2025 — The petitioner, recorded owner of Plot No.331/429 measuring Ac 1.164 dec. in Mouza-Bhubanpur, Tahasil-Balianta, alleged that Opposite Party No.1 (OPTCL) was illegally and forcibly attempting to occupy her agricultural land for installation of 220 KV overhead electric lines without notice, consent, acquisition or compensation, and prayed for a writ of mandamus to vacate the land and pay compensation. Noting that the Division Bench of this Court in Debasis/Debasish Mangaraj v. State of Odisha (WA No.1742 of 2023, decided 31.07.2024) had held that compensation claims are determinable only under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and finding the factual backgrounds of the two cases almost identical, the Court held there was no scope to take a different view, disposed of the writ petition in light of that judgment, and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority for compensation under Section 16(3); the authority was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order preferably within three months of production of certified copy. Interim order, if any, vacated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4407 of 2025

¶3

Subhashree Suchismita @ …. Petitioner Sahoo

¶4

Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Chairman-cum-Managing …. Director, OPTCL, BBSR & Others

¶7

Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. B.K. Das, Sr. Advocate for OPTCL

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER

07.04.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. B.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1-OPTCL. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“1. Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the OP No.1 to vacate the scheduled land of the petitioner and to pay appropriate compensation for causing damages to the property.

¶19

2. And pass any other appropriate order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶20

The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ application in a nutshell is that the Petitioner is the recorded owners of plot bearing No. 331/429 measuring a total area of Ac 1.164 dec. situated in Mouza- Bhubanpur, Tahasil-Balianta. Further, it has been pleaded that the Petitioner of the aforesaid plot is Agriculture land.

¶21

In the writ petition it has been alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 is illegally and forcibly trying to occupy the land of the Petitioners for the purpose of installation of 220 KV lines above the Petitioners’ land, without knowledge and consent of the Petitioners. As a result of which, the Petitioners apprehend that they are likely to incur huge financial loss, along with damage to the property as well as the standing crops.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Opposite Party No.1 is trying to occupy the land of the present Petitioner, as has been narrated hereinabove, by force and are trying to raise construction over such land for installation of over head electric line. He further contended that no notice has been given to the Petitioner and no prior consent has been obtained from the Petitioners before such construction, as is mandatory under the relevant statute and rules. He further contended that the aforesaid activities of the Opposite Party came to the knowledge of the present Petitioners from the local newspaper, although the specific details were not clear.

¶23

¶24

In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that public litigation of such notice is not a notice in the eye of law.

¶25

In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Opposite Parties have been illegally permitted to forcibly occupy their land and the same may cause huge financial loss and deprivation of the property which stands recorded in the name of the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further alleged that neither the land has been acquired nor has any compensation been paid to the Petitioner despite the fact that after installation of the aforesaid electric line the land would become valueless for the Petitioner and the Petitioner is likely to suffer financial loss to the extent of the land that has been recorded in their name.

¶26

Referring to the provisions contained in the Telegraph Act, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1 contended that since the project that is being carried out by the Opposite Party No.1 in the larger interests of the public and in view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Sections, the Petitioners cannot stop the construction work. However, in the event the Petitioner has not been paid suitable compensation it is open to them to raise their objection as per the procedure laid down provided in the Telegraph Act itself.

¶27

In the context of non-payment of compensation,

¶28

¶29

amit

¶30

Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 refers to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Debasis Mangaraj Vs. State of Odisha ( WA No.1742 of 2023 ) disposed of vide judgment dated 31.07.2024. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment, this Court observes that the judgment dated 20.7.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge Bench in WP(C) No. 14578 of 2023 was under scrutiny before the Hon’ble Division Bench. While dismissing the writ application, learned Single Judge granted liberty to the Appellant to take recourse to Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Being aggrieved by such orders, the Petitioners filed the above noted writ appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench after taking into consideration several judgments and on detailed analysis of the factual background of that case, has finally held that the Petitioners’ claims for compensation can be determined only in accordance with section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act and accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed.

¶31

Further, drawing attention of this Court to the prayer made in the present writ petition, learned senior counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1 contended that the main grievance of the Petitioners in the present writ appeal is non-payment of compensation amount to the Petitioners. He further contended that in the entire writ petition the Petitioners have laid emphasis at their being deprived

¶32

¶33

of their properties as described in the body of the writ without being paid the appropriate and adequate compensation. On a careful analysis of the judgment of this Court by the Division Bench in the case of Debasish Mangaraj (supra) and further on analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the view that the factual background of both the cases are almost identical.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual and legal background of the present issue, this Court is of the considered view that since the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Debasish Mangaraj (supra) has already laid down the law, there is no scope for this Court to take a different view than the one which has already been taken by the Division Bench. Accordingly, the present writ petition is being disposed of in light of the judgment in Debasish Mangaraj’s case (supra). Accordingly, the Petitioners are granted liberty to approach the competent authority for grant compensation which would be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act. In the event the Petitioners approach the competent authority, the competent authority shall do well to consider the same as expeditiously as possible and redress the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified

¶35

¶36

copy of this order.

¶37