Madras High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.36328/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 19.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.36328 OF 2023
AND
W.M.P. NOS. 36309 & 36310 OF 2023 & 2615 OF 2024
Gopalakrishnan .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The District Collector
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 607 001.
2. District Revenue Officer
Cuddalore District
Office of the District Collector Office
Cuddalore.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cuddalore Revenue Division
Cuddalore.
4. Tahsildar
Panruti Taluk Office, Panruti
Cuddalore District.
5. Name of EE
The Executive Engineer (TLC)
TRANTRANSCO
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.36328/2023
(Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation)
Neyveli Division, Neyveli. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of
the 1st respondent in connection with impugned proceedings in
Na.Ka.L.3/26189/2022 dated 16.12.2023 and quash the same and
consequently forbearing the respondents and subordinates from laying the
proposed 110 KV transmission line and its tower in the petitioner’s patta land
in S. No.99/1A, 2A and 3 at Kiliruppu Revenue Village, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District, consequently direct the respondents to pay the
compensation for market value of the land in survey No.99/4D at Kiliruppu
Revenue Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District and actual cost of the trees
including future income loss from the trees in the above S. No.99/4D after
paying compensation permit the 5th respondent to erect the Tower No.23 at
the North West corner of the petitioner’s land in survey No.99/4D at Kiliruppu
Revenue Village, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Neethidurai
For Respondents : J.Ravindran, AAG,
Assisted by Mr.U.Bharanidharan
AGP for RR-1 to 4
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.36328/2023
Mr.D.Arunkumar for R-5
ORDER
The present petition has been filed to quash the impugned order and
for a further direction to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the trees
felled and also the future loss towards the said trees.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property, which is the subject
matter of the present petition, belongs to him in which there are more than
100 jack fruit trees and 300 teak trees. Each of the teak tree, after a period of
time, would fetch more than Rs.1 Lakh. The petitioner is eking his livelihood
with the income from the said plantation.
3. Whileso, the respondents intended to erect 110 KV DC lines through
the lands of the petitioner due to which very many trees would have to be
felled and most of the lands would be unusable. Though the petitioner is not
objecting to erection of towers even on his lands, the grievance of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
petitioner is only to the extent of the manner in which the towers are erected
on his lands, as the present alignment would result in felling of a large number
of trees. Therefore, the petitioner gave an objection for the manner in which
the proposed alignment is made, which objection was rejected by passing the
impugned order aggrieved by which the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that while the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order and also the erection of towers,
which would result in large scale felling of trees from his land, however, the
erection being in public interest, the petitioner has placed an alternate
alignment, through his lands in S. No.99/4D, which would result only in lower
destruction of trees. However, the same has not been considered by the
respondents while passing the impugned order, which renders the said
impugned order unsustainable.
5. It is further pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
while this Court may direct the respondents to consider the alternate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
alignment, he further submits that adequate compensation may also be
directed to be given for the lands as well as for the trees, which are to be
felled and to pay the said compensation before erection of the towers.
6. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submits that the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner
would work hardship as the alignment would not be in a straight path, which
would incur large scale modification of the plan and in such a scenario, the
respondents could consider the proposal if the petitioner is ready and willing
to pay the cost towards the alternate alignment, which would be more than a
Crore of rupees. It is the further submission of the learned Addl. Advocate
General that the alignment having been decided by experts, this Court may
not interfere with the same and that the respondents would pay the amount
which is due and payable to the petitioner in accordance with the Act and
Rules in force.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
7. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
8. In Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. - Vs - Century Textiles &
Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2017 (5) SCC 143 , the Supreme Court, with reference
to the identical scenario arising out of Telegraph Act, held as under :-
“23) Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
empowers the Telegraph Authority to place and maintain
a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts in
or upon any immovable property. The provision of Section
10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 makes it
abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to lay
down telegraph lines, the Central Government does not
acquire any right other than that of user in the property.
Further, Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
obliges the Telegraph Authority to ensure that it causes as
little damage as possible and that the Telegraph Authority
shall also be obliged to pay full compensation to all person
interested for any damage 18 sustained by them by reason
of the exercise of those powers.
* * * * * * *
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
26) We also do not find that the action of the Power
Grid, in the given circumstances, by not shifting the
transmission lines was arbitrary. From the facts noted
above, it becomes apparent that not only it was unfeasible
to change the alignment as almost entire work had
already been completed by the time the writ petitioner
started protesting against this move, even otherwise, the
Power Grid has given sufficient explanation to point out
that all relevant factors/ aspects were kept in mind while
laying down the impugned transmission lines. Such
transmission lines had to be in straight line to the extent
possible for eliminating loss of transmission. It is also
explained that electricity transmission is usually laid or
crossed over agricultural land where 19 minimum extent of
land gets utilised for erecting towers and where
agricultural activities are not prejudiced/obstructed in any
manner. The purpose is to avoid buildings, religious places,
ponds etc. while laying down these transmission lines. It is
only when it becomes inevitable that towers are placed on
the private lines to the minimum and least extent possible.
That is what was tried to achieve in the instant case.
Another important factor, which needs repetition at this
stage is that no blasting is permissible within 300 mts.
from the 400KV line (already existing) or the tower
structure. Mining of limestone can be taken up by
adopting the methods other than use of explosive/blasting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
– without damage to the tower foundation/tower
structure or the line, which can be accomplished by using
jack hammer/pneumatic hammer with compressor so as
to avoid any damage to the line or tower. This aspect has
also been taken note of by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court in the judgment dated March 11, 2008. The
Division Bench did not differ with any of these findings.”
9. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T.Thirumalai - Vs -
The District Collector & Ors. (2016 SCC OnLine Mad 15421) also supports the
case of the respondents in respect of alternative route and for better
appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder :-
"34. The objective of the respondents should always be
to select the shortest route with the least possible damage
to the lands and least detriment to the land owners. We
are conscious of the fact that the choice of lands that will
provide the shortest route with the least possible damage,
may not always be so easy. If the respondents avoid
installation of towers on certain lands due to their high
fertility, the eco- system and the individual land owner are
saved. But it may result in the transmission towers being
erected on alternate lands that may not provide the
shortest route. The consequence of this option is that the
cost of the generation and transmission would go up, that
would have an impact upon the economy of the country.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Therefore, the act of balancing the conflicting interests are
best left to experts."
10. From the aforesaid decisions, it is emphatically clear that feasibility
is one of the main concerns which needs to be addressed coupled with
balancing the conflicting interests, which are the pivotal points to be
considered while considering the proposal for alternative route. It has been
laid down that those aspects are to be best left to experts and this Court
should not sit in the chair of the experts to find out whether the decision
taken is proper or not so long as the said decision is within the domains of
legality and rationality. In the case on hand, the technical experts have
chosen a particular route and such being the case, this Court, under the guise
of judicial review, cannot import its decision to that of the experts in the field.
11. In Kushala Shetty’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that the courts are not at all equipped to decide on the viability and
feasibility of a particular project and in this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
“28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a
professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field
of development and maintenance of National Highways. The
projects involving construction of new highways and widening and
development of the existing highways, which are vital for
development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to
experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast
knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and
maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to
development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough
study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are
prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of
heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not
at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the
particular project and whether the particular alignment would
subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of
judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of
land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found
to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala
fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the
1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has
been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be
sustained.”
12. Further, it is to be pointed out that it has been the consistent view
of the Courts that personal interest cannot override the larger public interest.
When it comes to matters of larger public interest, the personal interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
should be relegated to the back seat, else the economic and developmental
activity of the country will be greatly hampered.
13. From the abovesaid decision, it is trite that this Court cannot sit
over the decision of the experts with regard to the viability of a project and
the alignment proposed by the experts cannot be interfered with by this Court
unless arbitrariness has been pointed out. In the case on hand, it is not the
case of the petitioner that there is arbitrariness in the decision and the
alignment is wantonly prescribed to prejudice and cause detriment to the
petitioner. The whole grievance of the petitioner is that the present
alignment causes large scale felling of trees and, therefore, it could be taken
through a different alignment.
14. It is to be pointed out that when an alignment is proposed, the
experts take into account all necessary factors into consideration before fixing
the alignment. Modifying the alignment merely because it affects a certain
individual cannot be acceded to moreso, when the project is for a public
purpose. Only to circumvent the difficulties faced by the persons, who will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
affected by the project, compensation is being paid by the State to such
persons. Therefore, when the experts have decided the alignment, with
which there is no quarrel, except the fact that if affects the lands of the
petitioner, the same cannot form the basis for a direction to the respondents
to propose a different alignment, as highlighted by the petitioner.
15. Insofar as the contention with regard to the amount to be
expended by the petitioner for a different alignment, as submitted by the
learned Addl. Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that this Court may direct the respondents to adequately compensate the
petitioner for the land as well as the felled trees within a particular time
frame, more particularly before the execution of the project and erection of
towers.
16. In such view of the matter, this Court, while dismissing the writ
petition, directs the respondents to adequately compensate the petitioner for
the lands of the petitioner utilised for the erection of the towers in terms with
the Act and the Rules and in accordance with law within a period of four
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
19.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
GLN
To
1. The District Collector
Cuddalore District
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 607 001.
2. District Revenue Officer
Cuddalore District
Office of the District Collector Office
Cuddalore.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer
Cuddalore Revenue Division
Cuddalore.
4. Tahsildar
Panruti Taluk Office, Panruti
Cuddalore District.
5. Name of EE
The Executive Engineer (TLC)
TRANTRANSCO
(Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
Neyveli Division, Neyveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
W.P. NO.36328 OF 2023
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
