SOMA ORAM Vs. CHAIRMAN STEEL AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application seeking for a direction to opposite parties not to draw high -voltage tower line across and above the petitioner's residential house situated on Plot No. 482/3843, Khata No. 1 15/71 in mauza Jalda, P. S. Raghunathpalli in the district of Sundergarh. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite parties are taking the high -voltage Tower -line from Panposh Power House to the Modernization Plant of the Rourkela Steel Plant and such line is to be drawn across and above the house of the petitioner It has been asserted that this has been done without following the proper procedure. It is further stated that though the petitioner has made representation, the Plan is not being changed.

(2.) THE opposite parties in their counter have stated that the line in question would pass over barren lands and open space and is not likely to affect any residential house of any person. It has been further submitted that the said line is required to be drawn for the purpose of modernization of the Plant and already huge expenditure has been incurred and as such it is very difficult to change the alignment at the present juncture. It has been further submitted that erection of the transmission tower is almost complete except in respect of the erection of transmission tower over the land of the petitioner which could not be completed due to stay order passed by the High Court. It is further submitted that the line will be drawn at a height of 14.64 metres from ground -level keeping in view the recommended safety distance as per the relevant rules.

(3.) THE submission of the counsel for the opposite parties that at this belated stage it is not possible to change the alignment appears to be justified as the other towers have already been erected after incurring huge expenditure. It has been submitted by the counsel for opposite parties that even if the land or building of a person is to be affected, there is provision for payment of compensation and as such the petitioner cannot seek for a restraint order against erection of such high -voltage towers. The counsel for opposite parties has relied upon the decisions reported in 1998 (II) O.L.R. 136 (Smt. Susama Patel v. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and others); A.I.R. 1988 Madhya Pradesh, 172 (Rajak and Ors. v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., Indore and Anr.) and A.I.R. 1977 Madras, 64 (A. Subba Naidu v. Rajammal alias Thayammal). A perusal of the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that the remedy of a party aggrieved by such action is to seek for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions contained in the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 (13/1985). Since at this stage it is not possible to give a direction for changing the alignment and to erect towers over some other land, the main prayer of the petitioner seeking for a restraint order cannot be accepted. However, there is no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to get compensation. The compensation is required to be fixed by the Collector. Though I had suggested the counsels for both parties to arrive at any agreed figure for the purpose of payment of compensation, the counsels after obtaining instruction failed to reach any agreement and as such it is left to be decided by the Collector in accordance with the relevant provisions. Since the petitioner had approached this Court, it is unnecessary for him to approach the Collector once again. The Collector is directed to deal with the matter relating to payment, of compensation. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed, he can seek for appropriate relief in the appropriate forum. The writ application -is accordingly disposed of subject to the aforesaid observation. There will be order as to costs.