Back
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli & Another
Versus
M. Sengu Vijay & Another
WRIT APPEAL (MD) No.932 OF 2010 & M.P.(MD) No.2 OF 2010
Decided On :Decided On : 22-02-2011
Indian Telegraph Act - Sections 10(d) and 17 - The court considered the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and held that the appellants were bound to pay compensation to the land owner for causing damages in erecting the electric poles. The court concluded that in the absence of specific consent from the previous land owner and payment of compensation by the appellants, the 1st respondent cannot be compelled to bear the expenses for shifting the electric poles and service lines.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent is the owner of the land and requested the appellants to remove the electric poles and service lines from his land. The appellants contended that the 1st respondent should bear the expenses for shifting the lines. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants to remove the electric poles and service lines without insisting on the 1st respondent to pay the expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and held that the appellants were bound to pay compensation to the land owner for causing damages in erecting the electric poles. Since no specific consent was obtained from the previous land owner and no compensation was paid, the court concluded that the silence of the previous land owner cannot be construed as implied consent. The court relied on previous judgments to support its decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of specific consent from the previous land owner and payment of compensation by the appellants, the 1st respondent cannot be compelled to bear the expenses for shifting the electric poles and service lines.
Result: The writ appeal was dismissed and the order of the learned single Judge was confirmed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a dispute over the removal of electric poles and service lines from private land and who should bear the expenses for shifting them (!) (!) .
The landowner (1st respondent) requested the electric poles and lines to be removed, asserting that no consent or compensation was given or paid by the previous owner or the electricity board, which should be necessary under applicable law (!) (!) .
The electricity board argued that the poles were erected with implied consent, as no objection was raised at the time of erection, and they are authorized under the relevant statutory provisions to install and maintain electric lines on land (!) .
The court examined the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Electricity Act, emphasizing that in the absence of explicit consent or compensation paid to the previous landowner, the silence or lack of objection does not constitute implied consent (!) (!) .
It was held that the electricity board is legally bound to pay compensation for damages caused by erecting poles on private land, and without such payment or explicit consent, the landowner cannot be compelled to bear the expenses of shifting the lines (!) (!) .
The court's decision confirmed that the electricity board must bear the costs of removing the poles, as there was no evidence of prior payment of damages or consent from the previous owner (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, and the original order directing the removal of the poles without charging the landowner was upheld (!) .
The judgment underscores the importance of obtaining explicit consent and paying compensation when installing infrastructure on private property, and that mere silence or non-objection does not imply consent under the applicable statutes (!) (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or assistance with drafting a related document?
R. SUBBIAH, J.,
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.04.2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.2176 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, by directing the appellants and the 2nd respondent herein to remove the electric poles and service lines from the 1st respondents land.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the writ appeal, are as follows:
The 1st respondent is the owner of the land in S.Nos.159/2, 160 and 161/1A situate in Alangara Peri Village within the Sub-Registration District of Gangaikondan, having purchased the same by a sale deed dated 09.04.2008 from one T.Komban. Subsequently, the said land was sub-divided as S.Nos.159/2B, 160/2 and 161/1A2. The 1st respondent had also obtained patta for the said land and he applied for lay-out and the Director of Town and Country Planning approved the lay-out by his Proceedings No.14/2009 dated 19.02.2009; but in the said Proceedings, the Director of Town and Country Planning observed that the electrical poles and lines situated in the subject land may be shifted along the road formed by the 1st respondent in the lay-out at his cost. Since the said observation was without jurisdiction, the 1st respondent approached the appellants and the 2nd respondent to find out the expenses involved in shifting the electrical poles and lines and initially, the 1st respondent was informed that the expenses would be in between Rs.80,000/-and Rs.one lakh. Believing the same, by a letter dated 30.03.2009, the 1st respondent requested the appellants Board to shift the electrical poles and lines. Subsequently, the first respondent was informed that the expenses would be about Rs.6 lakh and immediately, he approached the authorities and also sent a telegraphic notice to the appellants, but there was no response. Hence, the 1st respondent sent a legal notice on 20.11.2009 and called upon the appellants to remove the electrical poles planted on the above said property within ten days from the date of receipt of that notice. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed the writ petition and prayed for a mandamus directing the appellants to remove the electric poles and service lines from his land or in the alternative, direct the 2nd appellant and the 2nd respondent herein to bear the costs of re-locating the electricity poles and service lines in the subject land.
3. The case of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was resisted by the appellants contending that at the time of erection of electrical poles, there was no objection or obstruction from anybody against the Board including from the erstwhile owner of the subject property. Moreover, the Board is vested with the powers under Indian Telegraph Act to erect poles and draw lines wherever necessary in the interest of public. There are two sets of lines passing through the 1st respondents property, one set of lines, i.e. 6 poles, is for the welfare of the public and not for the benefit of any private individual and another set of lines, i.e. five poles, is for the benefit of the 2nd respondent, namely, Water Supply and Drainage Board. It is the contention of the appellant that if any individual is willing to shift the over head lines passing through the property, they have to bear the costs for shifting.
4. The learned single Judge, on a consideration of entire materials, allowed the writ petition, directing the appellants Board to remove the electric poles and service lines from the subject land without insisting the 1st respondent to pay the expenses for the same. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been preferred.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. In view of the submissions made on either side, the question arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellants Board (TNEB) is right in insisting the 1st respondent to pay
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
