Digitally signed by RAM ESH 2026:CGHC:8275 KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.16 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4637 of 2022 * - Bhikhari Das S/o Sukh Sagar Das Aged About 64 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Village - Jagmahant, Tahsil - Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus

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

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

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

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

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

Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

6 - Tahsildar Tahsil - Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents 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 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

16/02/2026

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

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner in lieu of 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

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.”

2. 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.

3. 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 .

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“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.”

6. 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 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.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge

vatti