SUSANTA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is one Susanta Kumar Mohapatra. He has filed this writ application in public interest on behalf of about 200 people of Deogarh, who have been allegedly affected by the construction of Electric Transmission Lines over their agricultural lands. According to the petitioner those people could not approach this Court on account of poverty and illiteracy. Their claim to receive compensation for the damage done to their standing crops and trees having remained unattended to, the petitioner has taken up their cause and approached this Court praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation to them. According to the petitioner in course of execution of work of Talcher-Rourkela 400 KV. Electric Transmission Line, the crops and trees standing over the lands of the private persons have been damaged and cut down. Heavy machineries and equipments which have been used for construction purposes have damaged the agricultural lands, roads, bridges and culverts in the area. The petitioner states that in accordance with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the people of Angul and Donai, whose crops and lands had been damaged and whose trees had been cut down, have been paid compensation. But the people of Deogarh have been discriminated against and are still waiting for their compensation. It has been alleged that the timber lay open exposed to sun and rain and in consequence their market value has deteriorated considerably much to the concern of the persons aggrieved. Accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the opposite parties to compensate all the affected persons mentioned in Annexure 1 for the loss sustained by them. It was further prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to repair the road, bridges and culverts which are damaged in course of the construction work.

(2.) The petition is resisted by opposite party No. 2, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (for short the 'Corporation') by filing a counter. Opposite Party No. 3 is the Principal Contractor through whom the aforesaid work was executed. Opposite Party No. 4 is the Collector and District Magistrate, Deogarh. On his behalf the Tahesildar, Deogarh has filed a counter, wherein it has been asserted that necessary compensation as due and admissible has been paid to the respective beneficiary. Besides, the repair work of the road has been undertaken and completed.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, the locus standi of the petitioner to file this writ application has been questioned. It has been averred that the writ petitioner has not been authorised by 145 numbers of so-called affected persons. It has been alleged that the claim of the petitioner is maliciously designed with an oblique motive and for self gain. It is further claimed that all the affected persons have received compensation from the Corporation, and as such, the present writ petition is required to be dismissed in limine. According to the Corporation, the Talcher-Rourkela 400 KV. transmission line is a sanctioned scheme which has been notified in the gazette published by the State Government, and the Corporation in exercise of power available under the Indian Telegraph Act for the purpose of erection of transmission line for the interest of general public, removed the standing trees which came across in course of erection of such transmission line. Any damage so caused to the agricultural crops and such trees felled also duly compensated for by the Corporation. It is claimed that Section 15(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act provides statutory bar which enjoins that if any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to receive compensation, they shall have to approach the District Judge of the concerned district for determination of such dispute by the District Judge and its decision shall be final. In the present case all the affected persons having been duly paid compensation by the Corporation for damage done to the standing trees and agricultural crops, no grievance subsists. It is claimed that the Corporation maintains some principles in the manner of payment of compensation to different persons for damage done to the crops and standing trees and no discrimination was made to any one. Accordingly, Opposite Party No. 3 prays for dismissal of the writ petition.