^ t3C?.N<-E..S ^ yfcHba r^r^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. ^' ^ Of 200g ^ PETTTIONER : /Gend RamSahuS/o LateShri Banwali Ram ^ahu, aged about 65 years ,resident ofPurarii Basti Jamnipali, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (CG). A^ ^O^W^ .As^t^""" -"w-"^\^" •••',,n" \>-' VERSUS ^s- RESPONDENTS .^^MM/;.;^ National Therm.al Power Corporation , Through the General Manager, Seepat, Bilaspur TahsU and Distriet Bilaspzir(CG). The Depiuty General Manager (Urban Adm.inistratfeia), N.T.P.C. Korba(CG).. ^3. The CoUector, Korba, 'Eahsil and Distaict Korba (GG). ^4. Sub Divisional Offieer (Revenue), Katghora^ District Korba(GG). y5. Tahsildar, Katgfcibra, Katgfaora, DistrictKorfea|E5|^ m& '.1-. "M WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^. •^ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sindle Bench: HQn'ble Shri ManjndraMohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (C) No.617/2008 Petitioner ReSRpndents Gend Ram Sahu Versus National Thermal Power Corporation and Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Present: - ^i-^. Shri Shailendra Dubey, coungel for the petitioner. ^ Shri B D. Guru, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondehts N0.3 to 5. ORALORDER (Passedon 09-02-2011) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to invoke extra- ordinaryjurisdiction ofthisCourtfor issuance of a djrection to respondentNo.2 to complete the work of drainage construction and repairofchamber.pipelines and also forissuance of a direction to the respondent-N.T.P.C. authority to pay compensation tp the petitioner. 2. Inthis petition, thepetitionerhasallegedtfiatheiStheBhoomiSwamiof land situated in Khasra No.93/2, 94/1, 108/4 and 95/2 where the petitioner is carry on agricultural activity. It is the case of the petitioner that because of incomplete work of drainage and also improper operation of the pipeline, which is being used for the purpose of drainage, the waste and rainy water is flowing into the field ofthe petitioner, causing extensive damage to the standing crop since ^^ • • . .'"•.• "• . . . . - long.It has also been pleaded that the petitioner madevarious representations to wr T'J.T.P.C. authorities as well as to the State authorities but thesame failed to evoke any response with the result that the drainage water is continuing to 1: : • ~ . • . . damage the crop of the petitioner. Further case of the petjtioner is that ori several t!:i ^^^ ^ »•- tf "•^8 1_- applications made, the Collector directed enquiry and the Tehsildar, Katghora registered a Revenue Case for payment of damages to the crops belonging to the petitioner. Later on, behind the back ofthe petitioner, a spot inspection was alleged to be made on 21-03-2005 and on that basis, the claim of compensation ofthe petitioner has not been accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the Revenue Authorities had registered a Revenue Case, on the basis of a defective spot inspection dated 21-03-2005 prepared in the absence of the petitioner, the Tehsildar, katghorasubmitted a report to the S. D. O., Katghora vide Annexure P-17 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of compensation. He submits that this Court directed the Revenue Authorities to make spot inspection which was made on 30-11-2010 and the report has been prepared which shows that some damage was caused to the crop belonging to the petitioner during the years 1993, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Learned counsel submits that in view of this report, the respondents No.2 to 5 may be directed to considerthe case ofthe petitioner for grant of damages. 4. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 is that the petitioner is not entitled to any damages. Learned counsel submits that earlier the Tehsildar, Katghora registered a Revenue Case wherein enquiry was made and upon spot inspection made on 21-03-2005 (Annexure P-16), it was found that no damage was caused to the crop of the petitioner, and therefore, the Tehsildar, Katghora submitted a report to the S.D.0. (Revenue) iTtde hjs memo Annexure P-17 stating that the petitioner is not entitled to any <jamages. He further submits that in fact, the petitioner is using water for irrigation purposes and this is an additional reason as to why the petitioner is not entitled to claim damages. Lastcontention of learned counsel for respondents \-s^^ /'^'"^"'% f ^L. '^ ^, <i'S •^ -^ z ir.^sf-" No.1 & 2 is that as the respondents are not admitting the claim of the petitioner and whether or not the drainage water is passing through the pipelines of respondents No.1 & 2, causing damage to the petitioner, is seriously disputed question of fact which may not be gone into the writ petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 Learned State couhsel referring to the report submitted before the Court and the affidavit filed on 14-12-2010 in compliance of order passed by this Court, submitted that in the recent report prepared under the supervision of the S.D.0. C- (Revenue), Katghora as well as on the basis ofspot inspection report, it has come out that the some damage was caused in the past, to the crops belonging to the petitioner, but at present, no damage is being caused from inflow of water of the respondents No.1 &2, to the cropsof the petitioner. 6. From the pleadings, documents on reeord and the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is a serious dispute between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents No.1 & 2 on the other hand, in so far as release of water to the field of the petitioner and also with regard to the extent of damage, if any, caused to the petitioner, by such release of water. 1 find that the Tehsildar, katghora had earlier opened a' Revenue Case on the complaint of the petitioner and submitted a report t6 the S.D.0. (Revenue) vide Annexure P-17 on the basis ofspot inspection (Annexure P-16). However, now a fresh spot inspection report has been prepared by the Tehsildar, whichhas been placed on record as Annexure A-3. The two spot inspection reports are cantradictory to each other. / •~,1 • n' 7. In this view of the matter, it appears to be a case of seriously disputed question of fact, in which, 1 am not inclined to go into in this petition. However, '% &, Z:s€/ L^^^^°". A' the Tehsildar, Katghora, who has already been opened Revenue Case in the matter, shall now make proper enquiry in this matter. 8. Accordingly, it would be proper to direct the Tehsildar, Katghora to decide the claim of the petitioner for grant of damages after considering various reports including the recent report now prepared in compliance of order passed by this Court and after allowingthe petitioner as well as respondents No.1 & 2 to lead evidence, documentary or oral, for and against the claim. 9. Needless to emphasize, it any of the parties are aggrieved by any action ororder of the Tehsildar, Katghora, it would be open for them to take recourse to such remedyas may be available underthe law. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed off. sd:' _ chrivast^a .a?AobaBbItrlw ludgP /-•• ^w.