Madras High Court
S.K.Srinivasan vs The Chairman on 24 March, 2022
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :24.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
Writ Petition No.23874 of 2015
&
M.P.No.1 of 2015
S.K.Srinivasan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation, Thiruvalangadu.
3. Superintending Engineer,
General Construction Circle,
Kamaraj Nagar Colony,
Udayapathy, Salem - 636 014.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Maaligai, Olimohamedpet,
Kanchipuram – 631502.
5. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Transmission Lines Construction,
General Construction Circle,
Old Katpadi, Vellore - 632 007. …. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records of the third respondent relating to issuance of undated
letter in Lr.No.SE/GCC/SLM/EE/TLC/TPR/AEE/GL/F.petition/D.1631/
dt_.06. 2015 and quash the same and thereby forbear the respondents
from putting up any kind of temporary, permanent structure or erecting
any high tension electric tower/pole in the land in Survey No.4/5,
measuring an extent of 1 acre and 89 cents in Athipattu Village,
Koormavilasapuram Panchayat, Thiruvalangadu Panchayat Union,
Tirutani Taluk, Tiruvallur District, belonging to petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.Manjunath Karthikeyan for
Mr.S.R.Rajagopal
For R1 to R5 : Mr.S.Madhusudhanan
(Standing Counsel)
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of the agricultural land measuring 1
Acre and 89 cents in Athipattu Village, Koormavilasapuram Panchayat,
Thiruvalangadu Panchayat Union, Tirutani Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
The respondent officials during mid May 2015 started erecting high
tension towers and dug up the petitioner's land for putting up the base.
The petitioner objected to the digging up of his place and informed the
respondents that the adjacent land abutting his property in Survey No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
4/6 is an Anadheenam land belonging to the Government and the pole
can be erected there. Despite the objection, the respondents have
proceeded with the work. Therefore, he made an objection to the 1 st and
2nd respondent and the same was acknowledged by them on 26.05.2015
and 27.05.2015 respectively. Thereafter, he filed a Writ petition in
W.P.No.15647 of 2015 forbearing the respondents from putting up any
kind of temporary, permanent structure or erecting high tension electric
tower or pole over his land. This Court by its order dated 03.06.2015
directed the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner on
merits and in accordance with law taking note of the judgment reported
in 2012 (1) CTC 504 and pass orders. The respondents without
considering the judgment reported in R.Santhana Raj and Another vs.
The Chief Engineer Non Conventional Energy Source and others,
2012 (1) CTC 504, as directed by the order of this Court dated
03.06.2015 erected the same and proceeded with the work. It is stated
that the property of the petitioner being an agricultural land, no
hindrances for the agricultural activities or no damages will be caused to
the same and the tower proposed to be erected for the completion of the
power scheme as approved by the Central and the State Government.
Again the petitioner approached this Court challenging the rejection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
order and for a direction forbearing the respondents from erecting the
tower.
2. At the time of admission Mr.Varunkumar learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted that no approval was obtained
from the District Magistrate as contemplated under Section 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
Considering the fact this Court granted injunction restraining the
respondents from proceeding with the erection of the tower over the
agricultural land of the petitioner. In spite of the same, the respondents
have proceeded to the work in violation of the interim order granted by
this Court on 06.08.2015 in M.P.No.1 of 2015. Against which the
petitioner has filed a Contempt Petition No.1935 of 2011, which we
chose to deal with separately.
3. Now, coming back to the impugned order, the respondent has
simply stated that no damage will be caused to the agricultural land. The
tenor of the letter reflects that the agricultural land is not worthy for
consideration and that the erection of the high tension lines as approved
by the State and Central Governments values more than agriculture. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
also relevant to note that the respondents are taking shelter under Sec.10
of the Act. Sec.10 of the Act confers power on the Telegraph Authority
to maintain Telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or
upon any immovable property. For the purpose of a Telegraph
established or maintained by the Central Government, the proviso (c) to
that Sec.10 specifies that in respect of the properties vested under control
of the local authority the Telegraph authority shall not exercise the power
conferred under Sec.10 without permission of the local authority. Clause
(d) of the proviso further directs the authorities to exercise power without
causing much damage and to pay compensation to all person interested
for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those
powers.
4. Sec.16 of the Act further provides for compensation when the
execution work is resisted or obstructed by the property owner, the
compensation shall be fixed by the District Magistrate and after approval
of the said District Magistrate the Telegraph Authority can exercise the
power conferred under Sec 10. The Sub-clause 3 of Sec. 16 provides
further that the sufficient amount of compensation to be paid under Sec.
10 clause (d) can be decided before the jurisdictional District Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
5. In this dispute, even though the petitioner has raised his
objection and made a representation to the respondents, the respondents
have not chosen to get the appropriate orders from the District
Magistrate. This Court by its order dated 03.06.2015 in W.P.No. 15647
of 2015 categorically directed the respondents to consider the
representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of
R.Santhana Raj and Another vs. The Chief Engineer Non
Conventional Energy Source and others, reported in 2012 (1) CTC 504
Wherein the procedure has been reiterated. Again, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of present writ petition. An interim order
was granted considering the instruction given by Mr.Varunkumar,
learned counsel for the respondents at the time of admission. This shows
that the respondents did not care to fallow the mandate under Sec.10 and
16 of the Act. As stated earlier they have slated down the agriculture and
proceeded with erection of lines in violation of the orders issued by this
Court.
6. In respect of the compensation is concerned, the Government
has issued G.O.(Ms)No.63, Energy (A1) Department dated 22.11.2017,
wherein certain guidelines were adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu. A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
policy decision was taken to adequately compensate the owner of the
land but prospectively. Subsequently, a fresh G.O.(Ms)No.86, Energy
(A1) Department dated 30.10.2019 came to be issued in which the
Government thought it fit to remove the word prospective and any land
loser is entitled to compensation. In the similar circumstances, this Court
in W.P.No. 32820 of 2017 by its order dated 24.02.2020 directed the
respondents to consider the request of the land losers therein and to fix
the compensation in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.86
dated 30.10.2019. Therefore, it is very clear that the compensation shall
be paid irrespective of the date of execution of the work.
7. In so far as the issue of compensation in connection with the
impugned order passed by the respondents if considered in the light of
the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 30.10.2019, it should
be borne in mind that agriculture is also an industry. Agriculturists
because of their poor financial condition cannot be slighted down or
ignored. Every agriculturists in this country is a proud citizen who
deserves due respect and honour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
8. It is noted that the respondent recklessly dug out the agricultural
land though it is stated that it is only two cents which is 880 sq.ft it will
cause severe damage to the agricultural land. The respondents un-
mindful of the availability of the land which is classified as Anatheenam
have erected the poles in the agricultural land owned by the petitioner.
First thing to be borne in mind is that an agriculturist ekes out his life and
also produces food for the country from whatever meagre extent of land
owned by him. When it is dug unmindfully, not only that 880 sq.ft out of
1 Acre 89 cents is rendered unuseful but it also affects the production to
a reasonable extent of land surrounding the base of the tower. This 880
sq.ft is rendered permanently unuseful causing damage to the production
of agricultural products for ever. The tower erected is for supply of
electricity. There will be always a threat for irrigating the land around the
base of electrical tower. It is also relevant to note that if the tower line
above the head of the land is high tension power line, an element of
threat will be running in the minds of the agriculturists to irrigate, plough
and effectively use the land. During winter seasons or rainy seasons the
threat of electrocution will always be there and that will run in the minds
of the agriculturists and agricultural labour. Further, in that land
agriculturists cannot plant any palm tree, coconut tree or any trees which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
grows tall, for, electrical line was running over it. Thus, he will not be
free to plant or cultivate the land as he wants. The independence of
choosing the crops, planting the trees will be permanently taken away
from the agriculturists. Apart from these things, when a power line runs
across the land, the value of it naturally goes down as compared with the
adjacent lands. Therefore, as stated in the impugned order it is just
agricultural land and does not cause any hindrance to agricultural activity
is without application of mind and with an intention to slight down the
worthy agriculture which provides food for the country.
9. Coming back to the legal aspects, even though the respondents
are empowered to erect poles in any place, Section 16 of the Act
mandates that the compensation shall be fixed by the District Magistrate
and with the permission of the District Magistrate, the poles can be
erected. For that proper enquiry giving notice to the land owner as well
as to the respondents shall be conducted.
10. In the instant case, the respondents have given categorical
instruction and without attempting to get any approval as contemplated
under Sec.16 of the Act, the respondents have proceeded to erect the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
poles. Therefore, the action of the respondents is not only violation of
Sec. 16 of the Act but also in violation of interim order granted by this
Court in M.P.No.1 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015. Therefore, considering the
totality of the circumstances, this Court directs the 1st respondent to take
up the matter with the District Collector, Tiruvallur District and fix
appropriate compensation as per the new Act, Right to Fair
Compensation Act, 2013 and in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.86, Energy
(A1) Department dated 30.10.2019 and pay compensation as becoming
of the due respect to the Agriculture industry. The District Collector
Tiruvallur is directed to complete the process within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
24.03.2022
sha/kpr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation,
Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation, Thiruvalangadu.
3. Superintending Engineer,
General Construction Circle,
Kamaraj Nagar Colony,
Udayapathy, Salem - 636 014.
4. The Superintending Engineer,
Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle,
Anna Maaligai, Olimohamedpet,
Kanchipuram – 631502.
5. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Transmission Lines Construction,
General Construction Circle,
Old Katpadi, Vellore - 632 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
sha/kpr
W.P.No.23874 of 2015
&
M.P.No.1 of 2015
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
