Madras High Court
S.Lakshmana Peruml vs The District Collector on 29 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.382 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020
S.Lakshmana Peruml ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Tuticorin – 628 101,
Tuticorin District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kayathar Taluk,
Tuticorin District – 628 952.
3.The Chief Engineer,
Non Conventional Energy Sources (NCES),
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
4.M/s.Vestas Wind Technology India Private Ltd.,
No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai – 119. ... Respondents 1 to 4/Respondents 1 to 4
5.M/s.Vivid Solaire Energy Private Limited,
Rep. by its Land an Permitting Manager,
Raja Parmar,
1st Floor, Orchid Centre,
Golf Course Road,
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.382 of 2020
Sector – 53,
Gurugram – 122 002,
Haryana. ... 5th Respondent
(R5 impleaded vide order of Court
dated 29.04.2021 made in C.M.P.
(MD) No.358 of 2021 by TSSJ & SAIJ)
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 14.02.2020, passed in W.P(MD).No.1060 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Chinraj
For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mrs.S.Srimathy
For Respondent No.5 : Mr.V.Saravanan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
This Writ appeal filed is directed against the order, dated 14.02.2020,
passed in W.P(MD).No.1060 of 2020.
2.The said Writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a
direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to remove the unlawful erection of 20
electricity transmission poles in the petitioner's agricultrual land in S.Nos.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.382 of 2020
158/2, 166/4, 166/5, 285/5, 285/6E, 154/4, 289, 290/8 total extent in 3.73
hectare of the petitioner's own land in Kuthiraikulam, Silankulam, Kayathar
Taluk, Tuticorin District. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge on the ground that it is a dispute between the appellant and the
fourth respondent, which is a private entity.
3.The appellant is before us contending that the entire standing crop
was destroyed to a total extent of 9.17 hectare and under similar
circumstances, in a case in W.P.(MD) No.960 of 2020, compensation was
paid to the land owner.
4.Admittedly, the appellant did not approach the District Collector
while the work was in progress stating that he has objected to the entry of
the fourth respondent into the land in question. If such objection was raised,
probably, the third and fourth respondents would have approached the
District Collector for entering into the field. As of now, the pole has been
erected and the energy is being wheeled out through the lines across the
poles. Therefore, the question of removing the poles cannot be considered.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.382 of 2020
5.We have heard Mr.K.Chinraj, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned counsel for the third
respondent and Mr.V.Saravanan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent,
who have appointed the fourth respondent as a sub-contractor.
6.Considering the fact that the appellant is an agriculturists, we are
inclined to issue certain direction so that the District Collector, Tuticorin
District can look into the matter and a reasonable relief can be granted to the
appellant.
7.Accordingly, while confirming the findings of the learned Writ
Court, we permit the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along
with a copy of order and a fair assessment of the alleged loss sustained by
the appellant with a request to pay adequate compensation from respondent
Nos.4 and 5. If such representation is given, the District Collector shall
cause enquiry to be done either by himself or any other senior officer after
notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 and based on the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.382 of 2020
enquiry a reasonble solution be arrived at by the authorities. This direction
be complied with within four months from such representation is filed.
8.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the above
directions. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
29.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sj
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The District Collector,
Tuticorin – 628 101,
Tuticorin District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kayathar Taluk,
Tuticorin District – 628 952.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.382 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020
29.04.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
