Madras High Court
K.R.E.Arumugam vs The Chairman on 15 December, 2021
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
K.R.E.Arumugam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Non-Conventional Energy Sources,
TANGEDCO,
No.15, 15A, Kumaralingam Road,
Udumalpet - 642 154
3. M/s.Jain Mahindra Pukhraj,
41/42, Liberty Cinema Building,
2nd Floor, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai 400 020
4. M/s.Shah Dilipghisalai,
41/42, Liberty Cinema Building,
2nd Floor, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai 400 020
____________
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
5. M/s.Shri Karpakambal Mills Ltd,
Cholapuram, (South) P.O.
Near Rajapalayam,
Virudhunagar 626 129
6. M/s. Kandhan Knits,
No.1/287-B.
P.N.Road, Pondupalayam P.O.
Peramanallur 641 666
7. M/s. N.S.P.Tex,
No.1/287, A.P.N.Road, Pondupalayam P.O.,
Perumanallur 641 666
8. M/s.Indiana Grating Pvt. Ltd.,
Indiana House P.B., No.7409,
Moral Naka, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059
9. M/s SNQS Internationals, 19, India Nagar,
2nd street, Murugapalayam South,
Tiruppur 641 603
10. The Protectron Electromech (P) Ltd.,
D-11-14, Brigade MM, 7th BIPCK,
Jeyanagar, K.R.Road,
Bangalore 560 070 ... Respondents
*RR 3 to 10 impleadeed as per order of this Court dated 05.11.2012 in M.P.No.3 of 2012 in
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of CERTIORARI, to call for the entire records to the
impugned order passed by the second respondent in his
Lr.No.1620/SE/NCES/UDT/AEE/SDM/F.Court Case/12, dated 27.08.2012.
____________
Page No.2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For R-5 : Mr.Thiagarajan
For R-9 : Mr.S.Mahesh
For RR 1 - 4 : No Appearance
6-8 & 10
******
ORDER
The order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 27.08.2012 is under
challenge in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner claims that his father
owned vast extent of lands situated in (1) G.S.Nos.(Old S.Nos.16, 30, 173,
535), 677, 678, 680/A, 680/B, 681, 991, 1015 and 1016 (New
S.Nos.817/1A2B) to the total extent of 67.69 acres in Puthur Village,
Dharapuram Taluk now Tiruppur District: (2) in G.S.No.(Old S.Nos.) 17-B,
21-A, 169, 170, 173, 126, 122 and 172-A to the total extent of 57.27 acres
of land situated in Chinnakkampalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk now
Tiruppur District; (3) in G.S.Nos.(Old S.Nos) 17-C, 107, 108 and 131 to the
total extent of 40.57 acres of land situated in Chinnakkampalayam Village,
Dharapuram Taluk now Tiruppur Districtl (4) in G.S.No.(Old S.No.) 129 to
the total extent of 15.1 acres of land situated in Chinnakkamapalayam
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
Village, Dharapuram Taluk now Tiruppur District and (5) another extent of
land in G.S.No.(Old S.Nos.) 31, 30, 32 and 34 to the total extent of 21.46
acres situated in Chinnakkampalayam Village, Dharapuram Taluk now
Tiruppur District.
2. One P.K.Duraisamy Gounder and his brother P.K.Palanisamy
Gounder, P.K.Govindhasamy Gounder and their respective wives, namely
Muthammal, Lakshmi Ammal and Swamiyammal and the said
P.K.Duraisamy Gounder, P.K.Palanichamy Gounder, P.K.Govindhasamy
Gounder 's mother Devammal have claimed over the above said lands and
interfered with the lawful possession of the father of the writ petitioner
K.R.Eswaramoorthy Gounder. Thus, the father of the writ petitioner filed
Civil Suits in O.S.Nos.2 & 3 of 1960 against all the persons.
3. The suits were dismissed by the Sub Court on 07.04.1962 and an
Appeal Suit was filed in A.S.No.268 of 1962 and A.S.No.129 of 1964
before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, challenging the Decree and
Judgment passed in the Original Suit.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
4. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, on 25.11.1969 set aside
both the Decrees and Judgments passed in O.S.Nos.2 & 3 of 1960, and
allowed the Appeal Suits filed by the father of the Writ Petitioner. The
Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the defendants in the suit was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
5. Relying on the said Civil Court's Judgments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner reiterated that the respondent Superintending Engineer has
not considered any of the documents and rejected the claim of the Writ
Petitioner by passing an a cryptic order.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 th respondent
raised an objection by stating that the petitioner had not participated in the
enquiry nor produced any of these documents enabling the Authorities to
consider. Thus, now he cannot raise any objection in respect of the order
impugned passed by the Superintending Engineer.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
7. A perusal of the order impugned dated 27.08.2012 reveals that the
petitioner was called for attending the enquiry on 04.07.2012 for producing
the latest ownership documents. However, the petitioner had not attended
the enquiry. In respect of the other windmill owners, they have produced the
ownership documents and those documents were verified by the Authorities.
Consequently, the claim of the writ petitioner to cancel the N.O.C. order and
to stop the generation of electricity from erecting WEGs are rejected.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the enquiry was
conduced on 04.07.2012. Admittedly, the petitioner had not participated in
the enquiry. Mere non-appearance of the petitioner would not dis-entitle him
from establishing his property rights, which is otherwise confirmed as per
the petitioner, based on the Civil Court's Judgments.
9. Thus, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the
writ petitioner to establish its ownership by submitting all the documents
before the Superintending Engineer. In this view of the matter, from the
impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in letter
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
no.Lr.No.1620/SE/NCES/UDT/AEE/SDM/F.Court Case/12, dated
27.08.2012 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent
for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to furnish all the
documents, representation if any, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2nd respondent shall fix a date
and time for enquiry and communicate the same to all the owners, who all
are the respondents in the writ petition and conduct an enquiry by affording
an opportunity to all the parties and thereafter, take a decision and pass
fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.12.2021
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-Speaking Order
sts/shr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,
sts
To:
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Non-Conventional Energy Sources,
TANGEDCO,
No.15, 15A, Kumaralingam Road,
Udumalpet - 642 154
Order made in
W.P.No.23774 of 2012
Dated:
15.12.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
