Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
E. Venkatesan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 18069 of 1995
Decided On : 07 May 1996
ELECTRICITY - ERECTION OF POLES AND DRAWING OF ELECTRIC LINES - CONSENT OF LAND OWNER - NOT REQUIRED - ELECTRICITY BOARD ENTITLED TO ENTER PROPERTY, DIG PITS AND INSTALL TOWERS - COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO BE PAID - TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885, S. 10 - ELECTRICITY ACT, 1910, S. 51 - ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1948, S. 42.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, joint owners of 0.39.5 hectares of land, filed a writ petition challenging the action of respondents in entering their land, digging pits, and erecting poles to draw high tension electric wires without their consent. Petitioners contended that the respondents were not empowered to do so without obtaining their consent or acquiring their land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondents were entitled to enter the petitioners' property and draw electric lines, dig pits, and construct towers for drawing high tension wires under Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, read with Section 10 of the Telegraphic Act. The court relied on the notification issued in 1961, which conferred powers of the Telegraph Authority on the Electricity Board, and the approved scheme of 18-12-1993, which declared that the Board would not be bound by the provisions of Sections 12 to 16, 18, and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were entitled to enter the petitioners' property and draw electric lines without their consent or acquiring their land. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the damage caused to their property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents were entitled to enter the petitioners' property and draw electric lines, dig pits, and construct towers for drawing high tension wires under Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, read with Section 10 of the Telegraphic Act. The court relied on the notification issued in 1961, which conferred powers of the Telegraph Authority on the Electricity Board, and the approved scheme of 18-12-1993, which declared that the Board would not be bound by the provisions of Sections 12 to 16, 18, and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the damage caused to their property under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
This Writ Petition, is filed by four petitioners, who claim to be joint owners of O. 39-5 hectares of lands in Survey No. 338/3. It is said that the land originally belonged to their mother Bhoopathi Ammal, and, on her death, the property devolved on them. It is said that having regard to the nature of interest the petitioners have got in the land, the only remedy open to the petitioners is recourse to Court by filing a joint petition. It is said that all the petitioners are co-owners of an extent of 1-52-0 hectares and the income therefrom is the only source of livelihood. It is said that there is no proceeding for land acquisition regarding the extent of 0-39-5 hectares of land or any other proceedings by the State to acquire the same for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It is said that during the last week of November, 1995, men working under respondents 2 and 3, unlawfully entered into Survey No. 338/3 and dug pits for erecting poles in order to draw electric wires/cables over the same. On enquiry, the petitioners came to know that the respondents are to draw high tension wire over the lands and that the pits have been dug for the purpose of erecting poles serving as basement.
2. It is said that they have not been served with any notice seeking consent for such use of patta lands. In the absence of any consent of the owners of the patta lands, the respondents are not empowered and they do not have any jurisdiction or power or authority to enter into the patta lands, dig pits, erect poles or draw high tension wires over patta lands. Immediately on coming to know about the same the first petitioner sent a representation on 4-12-1995 under registered post acknowledgment due complaining about the illegal and unlawful action of the respondents and requested them not to draw high tension wires and they also wanted that the electric wires be drawn from the nearby poramboke land, which is available abundantly on the eastern side of the lands. It is further said that unless the procedure as contemplated under the relevant legislation relating to drawing up of high tension electricity lines through patta lines are complied with, by obtaining consent from the land owners, no high tension electricity lines can be taken through patta lands. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents 1 to 3 may be restrained by a writ of prohibition or by a writ of mandamus forbearing them from erecting pole or drawing high tension wires or cables over the lands of an extent of 0.39.5 hectares, and for consequential reliefs.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent on behalf of all the respondents, where in it is stated that the Electricity Board has proposed to erect a 110 kv Sub-section at Orikkai Kaneepuram which will be fed by 110 kv D. C. line tapped off from Singaperumal Koil to Kancheepuram 110 KV SC line. The total length of the line is 15 KM and number of towers involved is 68. This project is a sanctioned scheme to the value of Rs. 7 crores as per B. P. N o. (FB) 305 dated 18-12-1993. This project was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and also in English and Tamil daily newspapers during September 1995, as required under Sec.28(3) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948
4. At the time of admission, a learned Judge of this Court passed an Order of injunction, and after the respondents entered appearance, they filed a counter, and wanted that injunction to be vacated. But the injunction was confirmed and the matter was taken in appeal as writ Appeal No. 393 of 1996. In the appeal, a direction was given for early disposal of the writ petition. That is how the writ petition itself has now come up for arguments, even though it was filed at the fag end of the year 1995.
5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that no portion of the land has been acquired and that they have not been given notice, and, without obtaining consent, respondents are drawing electric lines through their private land.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
