The judgment establishes the principle that the powers of the District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the non obstante clause in Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act override the requirement of obtaining consent from landowners and entitle affected persons to full compensation for any damages sustained.

R.BANUMATHI,J.

1. These Writ Appeals arise out of the order dated 13. 2002 made in W.P.No.20929 of 2000 quashing the proceedings of the District Collector, Erode dated 211. 2000 made in Ref.No.64859/2000/K-4, whereby the District Collector, Erode, permitting Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (in short, "TNEB") for stringing lines at location 18 and 19 in R.S.No.893/2 of Suriampalaym Kanjikoil village. Learned single Judge also directed removal of all poles erected in S.F.No.893/2 of Kanjikoil village, Erode District. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in Appeal preferred by the TNEB.

.2. The brief facts are that the TNEB established a 110 K.V. Sub Station at Gandhinagar near Suriampalayam village in Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. For the said Sub Station, a 110 K.V. D.C. line is stapped off from existing Gobi-Erode 110 K.V. D.C. line located in between 326 to 327 (near Chinniyampalayam) is to be laid to connect the Sub Station to the existing E.H.T. line. The 1st Respondent, Chinnasamy and Sigamani, who are the land owners of Survey No.893/2 raised objection for erection of towers in between the span 18 and 19 in their lands. The Objectors have also filed a Cviil Suit before the District Munsif Court, Perundurai in O.S.No.28 of 2000 and in I.A.No.124 of 2000 the Civil Court has granted interim stay. Since the land owner obstructed the work, TNEB approached the 2nd Respondent/District Collector seeking permission to TNEB to exercise the powers under Section 10 Part III of P&T Act. Notices were issued to the Objectors and TNEB for enquiry on 11. 2000. Both the Objectors and TNEB authorities appeared for enquiry and the 2nd respondent/District Collector enquired both the land Owner and TNEB officials.

3. On direction of the 2nd Respondent, District Revenue Officer along with the land owner and TNEB officials inspected the field in S.F.No.893/2, Kanjikoil village and District Revenue Officer submitted report to the District Collector. Upon consideration of the objections and also District Revenue Officers report, the District Collector passed the impugned order dated 211. 2000 made in Ref.No.64859/2000/K-4 granting permission to the TNEB to exercise the powers under Section 10 Part III of Telegraph Act, 1885 for stringing lines at location 18 and 19 in R.S.No.893/2 of Suriampalaym Kanjikoil village and permitted TNEB to continue the project.

4. Challenging the order of the District Collector, the 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition contending that there is an alternative and more convenient source available to connect the service line from poles No.17 to 19 and even though the 1st Respondent has explained his grievance, without going into the merits and demerits of the objections raised by the 1st Respondent, the District Collector erroneously rejected the 1stt Respondents objection. The 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner further averred that for erecting the poles in his lands, no consent was obtained and the stringing of lines over his lands has caused damage to his lands and caused diminution of the value of the lands and Writ Petitioner prayed for quashing the order of the District Collector dated 211. 2000 made in Ref.No.64859/2000/K-4.

5. Placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in S.KANNAPPAN (DIED) AND OTHERS VS. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRUVOTTRIYUR MUNICIPALITY, MADRAS AND OTHERS (1999 (III) MLJ 235), the learned Single Judge held that Section 12(2) of the Electricity Act imposes a condition to obtain the consent of the owner of the land before erecting poles and TNEB was not able to prove that they have obtained consent of the land owner, which is in clear violation of the conditions imposed under Section 12(2) of the Act. The learned single Judge further held that without such consent poles cannot be erected in the lands of the Writ Petitioner and on those findings quashed the order of the District Collector and directed removal of the poles.

.6.