This writ petition has been filed questioning the communication of
the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2025, wherein the petitioner was informed that the
respondents are going to proceed further to modify the existing high voltage
2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was purchased by
him through a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2019. The petitioner was in
possession and enjoyment of the property. One of the electric towers was erected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
in a portion of the subject property. While so, on 02.01.2025, some unknown
persons entered into the property and started to measure the existing electric tower
and they informed the petitioner that they are going to expand the electric tower by
altering the same and virtually, an attempt was made to occupy the entire property
and deprive the petitioner of his property. Hence, the petitioner sent a legal notice
dated 04.01.2025, raising objections. On receipt of the same, the impugned
rd
communication dated 06.03.2025, came to be issued by the 3 respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
3. The 3 respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions
n. I submit that the line work from tower Loc. 17 to Ayyarmalai 230 KV
SS was completed and line energized. Both 110 KV SC lines meet at Loc.17 and
is proposed to run as DC line from Loc. 17 to Loc.1 (Erode 230 KVSS). The
present stage is as follows:-
1 Total Distance 4.58 kms
2 Total Distance Covered -
o. I state that while proceeding with the execution of the work, the
Petitioners herein made an objection in erecting the towers in their land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
p. I reiterate that as stated above, TANTRANSCO had secured all
statutory approvals under Section 164 and 168 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before
initiating of the project.
q. I state that once the project is completed, it would be possible to achieve
the uninterrupted power supply, therefore the overwhelming public interest should
prevail over individual interest. I further submit that major portion of the project
has been completed.”
4. The respondent is now in the process of strengthening the existing 110
KV SC Erode-Pugalur line. In that process, the existing 110 KV SC Erode-Pugalur
single circuit line is going to be converted as double circuit line. Hence, steps were
taken for erecting towers in the property belonging to the petitioner, after getting
necessary statutory approvals under Sections 164 and 168 of the Electricity Act,
2003.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under Section
10(d) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (in short “the Act”), since what is now being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
carried out by the respondents is only a modification of the existing tower that is
already available in the property. In other words, only a improvement is being
done by the respondents and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any
compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is now being deprived of the entire property and therefore, if the
respondents want to continue with the erection of towers in the entire property,
they have to acquire the property and pay adequate compensation to the petitioner.
In the absence of the same, it will deprive the petitioner of the constitutional right
guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
7. This Court has carefully considerd the submissions made on either side
and the materils available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
8. Insofar as restraining the respondents to proceed further with the work,
such a course of action cannot be taken, since the work is being carried out after
obtaining necessary statutory approvals under Sections 164 and 168 of the
Electricity Act. Therefore, the limited issue that is involved in the present writ
petition pertains to the acquisition of property and payment of compensation to the
petitioner.
9. The respondents have taken a stand that no compensation is payable to the
petitioner, since the respondents are only improving upon an already existing tower
in a portion of the property.
10. The above stand taken by the respondents is unsustainable. The property
which is now going to be utilised for laying towers, will virtually prevent the
petitioner from using the property in future. Therefore, wherever there is
deprivation of enjoymnet of the property, necessarily, compensation amount has to
be paid. That is the purport and ambit of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
11. The next question is as to whether the respondents must be directed to
pay compensation under Section 10(d) of the Act. The respondents have taken a
very clear stand that they are not liable to pay compensation. This means that zero
compensation stand taken by the respondents.
12. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of
similar nature in The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and Others Vs.
N.Baskar and Others (W.A.No.380 of 2020 decided on 18.08.2021), wherein it
was held as follows :
“5. We are concerned with the interpretation of two provisions, namely,
Section 10(d) and 16(3). Section 10(d) comes under Part III of the Indian
Telegraph Act, which deals with the power of the Telegraphic Authority to
place telegraphic line and posts. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, Section 10(d)
imposes a responsibility on the telegraph authority to make sure that any
property which it deals with is put into a little damage as possible while
exercising its power. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has widened the
scope to include “any property” and, therefore, “any damage”. As the
provision is couched with a wider connotation, restrictive meaning is contrary
to the object and rationale leading to its interpretation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
6. Section 10(d) has to be read in conjunction with Section 16(3).
Section 16(3) speaks of “any dispute”. Therefore, one has to concern with the
disputes between the owner and the telegraphic authority. We cannot define the
dispute in a restrictive way. Such definition is not meant to be introduced
under Section 16(3) and that is the reason why it clearly says that any dispute
between the parties while exercising the power by the telegraphic authority
under Section 10(d). Therefore, Section 10(d) imposes an element of
responsibility to the telegraphic authority asking it to exercise caution and
restraint with respect to a possible damage to any property, any dispute in the
exercise of such a power would be amenable to Section 16(3). The word
'sufficiency of compensation' has also to be given a wider interpretation. When
we speak about the sufficiency of compensation it will also include the case of
no-compensation as well. Otherwise not only Section 10(d) but Section 16
would become redundant and otiose. There is no difficulty in understanding
the aforesaid provision in Section 16(3), which confers the power on the
District Court to adjudicate upon any dispute between the telegraphic authority
on the one hand and the owner on the other hand.
7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to permit the first
respondent/writ petitioner to approach the District Court within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by invoking
Section 16(3) by making an application. On such application, we expect the
jurisdictional District Court to decide all the issues on the question of
sufficiency of the compensation provided the writ petitioner would be able to
show the damage.”
13. The Division Bench dealt with the scope of Sections 10(d) and 16(3) of
the Act. The Division Bench came to a conclusion that even where the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
take a stand that they are not liable to pay compensation, it must be deemed to be
zero compensation and consequently, the land owner will be entitled to go before
the District Court under Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench
permitted the writ petitioner to approach the District Court within a time frame and
invoke Section 16(3) of the Act by making an application. This Court must also
take into consideration the judgment passed by a Division Bench in Ponnusamy
and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others (W.A.No.1178 of 2021 decided on
19.04.2021), wherein it was held that the District Collector cannot go into the
question of compensation and decide the same.
14. It is also relevant to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries
Limited and Others [(2017) 5 SCC 143] and the relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder :
“27. At this stage, we deal with the direction of the Division Bench
regarding compensation payable to the writ petitioner, or for that matter to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
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 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 to the 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.”
15. On a combined reading of all the above judgments, it comes to light that
the land owner cannot be deprived of compensation and if a lesser compensation is
paid or no compensation is paid, it is always left open to the land owner to
approach the District Court under Section 16 of the Act and claim for the
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
16. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner
has a right to claim compensation and there shall be a direction to the petitioner to
approach the jurisdictional District Court within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit an application invoking Section
16(3) of the Act. On such application being filed, the jurisdictional District Court
shall decide all the issues on the question of sufficiency of the compensation
provided to the petitioner and take a decision preferably within a period of six
months from the date of filing of the application.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Connected
W.M.P. is closed.
26.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gya
To
1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
144, Anna Salai
Chennai District
2.The Managing Director
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
144, Anna Salai
Chennai District
3.The Superintendent Engineer
General Construction Circle
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
182, Dr.Subbrayan Road
Tadabad, Coimbatore District
4.The Executive Engineer
Transmission Line Construction
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
Perundurai
Erode District
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
