Madras High Court
P. Mathaiyan vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 23 February, 2021
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23/2/2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
P. Mathaiyan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Electricity Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Salem District.
3. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO)
NPKRR Maligai, IV Floor
144 Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002.
4. The Superintending Engineer
TANGEDCO
Enforcement Sub Circle
Udayapatti
Salem District 636 140.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
5. The Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO, Enforcement Sub Circle
Udayapatti
Salem District 636 140.
6. The Assistant Executive Engineer
TANGEDCO, Enforcement Sub Circle
Udayapatti
Salem District 636 140. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the
claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of due compensation for the
loss and damages caused in the erection of high power tower and pass
orders within a limited time frame in the light of his representation dated
7/10/2020.
For petitioner ... Mr.G.Punniakoti
For respondents ... Mr.Annai Ezhil
Government Advocate
for R.R.1 and 2
Mr.Abdul Saleem
Standing Counsel
for R.R.3 to 6.
------
2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider
the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of due compensation for
the loss and damages caused in the erection of high power tower.
2. The case of the petitioner is that TANGEDCO has put up some HT
tower in the petitioner's land and has utilised the land in S.Nos.36/6 and
37/3A. In that land, according to him, there were 30 coconut trees and
several other trees and without valuing the trees available in the land, they
have calculated the compensation at Rs.48,148/- and the real damage caused
for the cultivation is the damages caused for the cultivation, cutting of trees,
erection of towers and damages to the electric motor pump set the authorities
are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of
Rs.16,,74,540/- Rs.1,25,000 Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively
total Rs.36,04,540/- as per norms but only a sum of Rs.48,148/- has been
paid as compensation and a sum of Rs.35,56,392/- is still to be paid, without
paying the said amount, they have completed the works of creating the high
tension towers and drawing electric High Tension wires.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions, by
referring to the provisions under Section 10 (d) to Section 19 of the Indian
Telegraphic Act and Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 that the
compensation ought to have paid as per the prescribed norms, but it has not
been followed in this case.
4. Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the
respondents 3 to 6 and submit that already compensation has been
calculated, as per the norms and a sum of Rs.48,148/- has been paid to the
petitioner in his father's S.B.A/c.No.6201776130, Indian Bank, Mecheri
Branch. He would further submit that if the petitioner is not satisfied with
the compensation, he is at liberty to approach the Court concerned, by
adducing the evidence before the appropriate Court. He has also relied upon
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in POWER GRID CORPORATION
OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. CENTURY TEXTILES AND INDUSTRIES
LIMITED AND OTHERS (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases – 143, wherein
it has been held as follows:-
“27. At this stage, we deal with the direction of
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
the Division Bench regarding compensation payable
to the writ petitioner or for that matter to the State
Government. In the first instance, no such claim was
laid by the writ petitioner in the writ petition or by the
State Government before the High Court.
Furthermore, the High Court could not have given this
task to the District Collector, which is contrary to the
provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Telegraph Act,
1885 which are extended to laying down of electricity
lines. As per this provision, such an authority vests
with the District Judge.
28. These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil
Appeal No.10951 of 2016 preferred by the Power
Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered
accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ
petitioner feels that it is entitled to any compensation,
the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before
the District Judge, concerned for this purpose. It
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
would also be apt to point out at this stage that the
Central Government has framed guidelines dated
15/10/2015 in this behalf which inter alia provide that
the issue of compensation may be resolved having
regard tot he mode and manner of assessment of
compensation as per the said guidelines. Therefore, it
would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail
the remedy as per the said guidelines.
5. In view of the above cited judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
this writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to work
out his remedy before the appropriate Court. No costs.
23/2/2021
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
mvs.
To
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Electricity Department
Secretariat
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Salem District.
B.PUGALENDHI,J
http://www.judis.nic.in
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
mvs.
Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
23/2/2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
