Madras High Court
& Distribution Corporation vs B.Subramanian on 6 July, 2021
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation,
& Distribution Corporation,
Anna Salai, NPKRR Maaligai,
Chennai-600002
2.The Superintending Engineer,
Transmission Line Construction,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation,
& Distribution Corporation,
Post Box No.820, Mannarpuram,
Trichy
3.The Executive Engineer,
Transmission Line Construction,
& Distribution Corporation,
Deepan Nagar,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
Transmission Line Construction,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
& Distribution Corporation,
Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District.
5. The Junior Engineer,
Transmission Line Construction,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation,
& Distribution Corporation,
Villupuram, Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District
.. Appellants.
-vs-
1.B.Subramanian
2.S.Raji
3.S.Ajithkumar
4.B.Devaki
5.The District Collector cum-District Magistrate,
Villupuram, Villupuram District,
(R6 sum-moto impleaded as per
order dated 03.08.2016)
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 03.08.2016 made in W.P.No.27081 of 2016 by a learned
Single Judge of this Court.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.M.Vijayamehanath
(TNEB)
For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.Baskar
For R5 : Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order dated
03.08.2016 made in W.P.No.27081 of 2016 by a learned Single Judge of
this Court.
2. So far as this Writ Appeal is concerned, it is stated that
Mr.Subramanian, 1st respondent herein has refused to receive the
compensation determined and paid by the appellants therein on the ground
that the compensation determined was insufficient.
3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
drawing our notice to Section 16(4) of the Indian Telegraphic Act stated
that since the erection of transmission tower point has already been over, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
the said Subramanian/1st respondent herein expects more compensation, he
has to approach the learned District Court under Section 16(4) of the Indian
Telegraphic Act which reads as follows:
''16.Exercise of powers conferred by section 10,
and disputes as to compensation, in case of property
other than that of a local authority--
(1) If the exercise of the powers mentioned in section 10
in respect of property referred to in clause(d) of that
section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate
may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority
shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2)If, after the making of an order under sub-
section(1), any person resists the exercise of those
powers, or, having control over the property, does not
give all facilities for their being exercised, he shall be
deemed to have committed an offence under section 188
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(3) If any dispute arises concerning the
sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section
10, clause (d), it shall, on application for the purpose by
either of the disputing parties to the District Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be
determined by him.
(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.
(5) Every determination of a dispute by a District
Judge under sub-section (3), or sub-section(4) shall be
final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall
affect the right of any person to recover by suit the
whole or any part of any compensation paid by the
telegraph authority, from the person who has received
the same.''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
4.Recording the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the respondents that the erection of
transmission tower and the power line have already been over, the question
of determination of the compensation on the land or above the land are to
be decided only by the learned District Court. Hence, nothing survives in
this writ appeal for further adjudication.
4.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed as infructuous with
liberty to the 1st respondent to approach the concerned District Court within
60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order in view of the
Covid-19 pandemic situation. No costs. consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
06.07.2021
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vsn
W.A.No.827 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.11538 of 2017
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
