The Madras High Court had observed that if the petitioner was not satisfied by the amount of compensation that was granted by the respondents, then he has the liberty to approach to the Court concerned i.e. District Court.
“Liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate Court.” The above observation had made by the Single-judge bench of Madras High Court comprising of the Justice B. Pugalehndi while dealing with the petition filed by the petitioner named P. Mathaiyan 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."
Factual Background
P. Mathiyan (Petitioner) had an agricultural land. TANGEDCO, a electricity supplying company had utilised the land of petitioner to install some HT towers. The compensation which was provided to him was Rs 48,148 whereas he demanded the compensation of total Rs 36,04,540 pertaining to several losses. Therefore this petition was bring before the Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner contented that Section 10 (d) to Section 19 of the Indian Telegraphic Act and Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 entails that the compensation ought to have paid as per the prescribed norms, but it has not been followed in this case.
Contentions of the Respondents
The Counsel for the Respondents submitted 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 and made reliance on the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd in which it was held that 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.
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 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.
Court Judgment
The Bench upheld the contentions of the Respondents by disposing the petition and held that Liberty is granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate Court. No cost was imposed.
Case Details
Case: Writ Petition No.3830 of 2021
Petitioner: P. Mathaiyan
Respondent: The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Punniakoti
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.Annai Ezhil & Mr.Abdul Saleem
Quorum: Justice B. Pugalehndi
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
