AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanju Panda, J.—In this writ application, the Petitioner has challenged the action of the Opp. Parties in drawing high voltage electric line over Ac. 1.68 decimals of Sarad variety agricultural land recorded in favour of the Petitioner vide R.O.R. published in the year 2.009 appertaining to Plot No 1787.
Earlier, the Petitioner had filed a suit in respect of the homestead land appertaining to plot No. 1787/3700 measuring Ac.0.20 decimals & also an application for injunction which was allowed by the Trial '' Court. The Learned District Judge, Balasore, by Order Dated 3.4,2010 passed in F.A.O. No. 46 of 2009 reversed the order of the Trial Court. Challenging the said order passed by the Learned District Judge, Balasore, in F.A.O. No. 46 of 2009, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 6496 of 2010 of 2010. Said writ application was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Opp. Parties to determine the compensation & disburse the same to the Petitioner & thereafter proceed with the construction work as per the rules provided therefor.
The contention of the Petitioner is that since the high voltage electric line is being drawn over the agricultural land in question, the land will be rendered unutilized & it will become unfit for agricultural purpose, the Opp. Parties are trying to draw the electric line without acquiring the land. However, the Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties have filed a counter-affidavit & submitted that the Opp. Parties will draw the high voltage electric line 9 meters above the ground. Therefore, the land in question of the Petitioner will not be affected, but the standing crop will be damaged when they will use the vehicles for drawing the line. The said damage will be confined to passage where the vehicles will run. They will not use the entire land. They have to determine the damage after the electric line is drawn over the said land & in view of Section 10 (b) & (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, they have to determine the compensation after the work is over.
The allegation of the Petitioner is that the Opp. Parties are digging hole over his agricultural land in question. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that the Opp. Parties are raising construction over 20 decimals of homestead land only which was the subject-matter of the earlier Writ application. Therefore, this Court is not delving into that aspect of the matter now.
Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, this Court disposes of the writ application as well as Misc. Case No. 7932 of 2010 with an observation that since the Opp. Parties are only drawing the high voltage electric line 9 meters above the ground & are not utilizing the entire land for any construction in the property, the land of the Petitioner will not be affected in any way & only the standing crop will be affected by use of vehicles for drawing the aforesaid electric line, the compensation for causing such damage to the standing crop will be determined & paid to the Petitioner within one month after the work is completed, i.e. after the line in question is drawn by them. However, if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation determined & paid by the Opp. Parties, it is left open to the Petitioner to raise a dispute in that regard before the appropriate forum as provided.
The order of status quo passed by this Court on 22.5.2010 is vacated. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.