The main legal point established is the obligation to compensate affected landowners under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the procedure for objections and realignment through the District Magistrate.

1. Since the issue related to the erection of high tension electric lines and payment of compensation is similar in all the writ petitions, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned order No.565/AEE/Pea.Va.Mi.Ka/Madurai Division/A.File/ dated 07.08.2009 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/-per cent for unlawfully depriving the petitioner of his property right in 0.44.00 Hectare equivalent to 1 acre and 9 cents of land comprised in Survey No.135/19A 2V of Kadambamkulam village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District, with 12% interest from the date of filing of this writ petition till the date of realization and within the time limit fixed by this Court.

3. W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents herein from erecting any high tension electric tower in S.No.538 to an extent of 8.39.5 hectares in Periya Manjuveli village, Aravakurichi Taluk, Karur District.

4. W.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed on 31.05.2010 in letter No.U PO/PEMIVAKA/Dindu/Ko.Kattu/A.No.91/2010 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the third respondent not to install any high tension tower in Survey No.347, Alamarathupatti, Aravakuruchi Taluk, Karur District, without following the procedure established by the Electricity Act, 2003 and Telegraph Act, 1885.

5. The land owners are before this Court with the present writ petitions seeking the above relief.

6. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are as follows:

6.1. The petitioner are all owners of their respective lands. When the respondents attempted to erect high tension towers, they have expressed their objections. The petitioners have contended that because of the erection of towers, the lands have lost their fertility. The erections of towers are without authority and only to suit to the private parties and are not in public interest. They have also stated that they have not been paid any compensation for the deprivation of the use of their land The objections of the petitioners have been rejected in W.P(MD)Nos.10194 of 2009 and 6730 of 2011. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.5629 of 2010 is concerned, no order has been passed on the objections. Under these circumstances, these writ petitions have been filed.

6.2. The third respondent in W.P(MD).No.10194 of 2009 stated that as per Section 51 of the Electricity Act, 1910, the Government of Tamil Nadu conferred upon the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the licensee, the powers which the Telegraph Authority possessed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Further, the said power line was erected in pursuance to the scheme as sanctioned by the Government of Tamil Nadu which came to be notified in Official Gazette in Gazette Notification vide part VI Section 3(6), dated 26.06.1996. This line consists of 76 locations out of which locations 68 and 69 are double pole structures. The operation of the double circuit line had been approved by the Chief Engineer/Transmission, Chennai, vide Memo No.SE/TR/EW/A1/F.1487/D.87/98 dated 07.03.1998. The said double circuit was installed nearly before 13 years and the petitioner claimed compensation after inordinate delay. The said work is being carried out in the interest of public. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

6.3. The fourth respondent in W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010 denied the claim of the petitioner stating that the transmission line was schemed from Sempatty-Pugalur 110 KV line to Renganathapuram 230/110KV Sub Station. Out of 67 towers, 66 towers are passing through lot of land owners. The petitioner and his family members threatened the fourth respondent, consequent to which, a compla