There should not be erection of pales in the land of any owner without his permission.

The defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.384 of 2004 who had lost their defence before the Courts below are the appellants herein. The Plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.384 of 2004 before the Court of Principal District Munsif, Valliyoor for mandatory injunction against the defendants/the appellants herein, the Electricity Board represented by its Executive Engineer and the Superintendent Engineer and for a direction to remove the Electricity poles installed in his land in S.No.2/2A measuring 6.52.08 hectares and also in S.No.2/2C measuring 0.09.08 hectares at Kudankulam village. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 4 and 5 /the appellants herein without the knowledge of the plaintiff had erected the electricity poles in his land i.e., in the above said Survey Number Property at Kudangulam which was objected to by the plaintiff through his notice dated 23.04.2004 and 28.04.2004 to the defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Since the plaintiff is a practicing advocate at Tirunelveli which is about 60 kms away from the place of occurrence, he came to know about the installation of the electrical post in Survey Number property at Kudankulam only in the month of April 2004. On enquiry, he came to know that the electrical poles were installed in the month of February 2004 itself. Since the representations made by the Plaintiff to the defendants proved futile, he had approached the Court.

2. The defendants 1 to 3 in the joint written statement in O.S.No.384 of 2004 would contend that the third defendant after purchasing the land, had handed over the same to the first and the second defendants. The first defendant purchased the property in which the Wind Mill was erected by the third defendant under a valid sale deed. The first defendant got no objection certificate for installation of wind mill and electric genearation on application to the defendants 4 and 5. The defendants 4 and 5 after perusing the records making a spot inspection and have accorded sanction and accordingly, the electric poles were erected and electric wires are drawn as per the Departmental norms. The electric poles and the stay wires were erected by the defendants 4 and 5 and they are in exclusive possession and control. The defendants 1 to 3 are unnecessary parties to the suit and they have no control over the defendants 4 and 5.

3. The defendants 4 and 5 have filed a joint written statement contending that the electric poles were erected during the month of February 2004 but the suit was filed belatedly. The plaintiff was allowed to erect the poles at the first instance and it is shown from the plaintiffs act of approach to the defendants 1 to 3 several times even after the completion of erection of poles. The plaintiff has filed the suit with a huge delay after the misunderstanding developed in due course between them. The erection of poles and wires are the part and parcel of the sanctioned project of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board as per Section 42 of Electric Supply Act r/w 12 of the Indian Electricity Act. As per the act, the Department need not obtain previous permission from the owner of the land in erecting the electric poles. The defendants act is approved by the Madras High Courts decision reported in 2001 LW 556 and AIR 1999 MAD 365. The action of the Boards is in their interest of public to have undisturbed power supply, and hence the Board cannot be prevented by injunction. There is no cause of action. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The sixth defendant in his written statement would contend that as per the partition deed, the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property.

S.A.No.513 of 2007:-

5. The defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.406 of 2004 who had lost their defence before the Courts below are the appellants herein. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of the Survey Number 2/2 along with his son sixth defendant measuring 6.52.08 acres in Survey No.2/2A and 0.09.08 hectares in Survey No.2/2C. The plaintiff is