The court emphasized the power of the respondents to enter the immovable property for erecting High Tension Tower Line without prior notice and highlighted the need for the petitioner to receive adequate compensation.

1. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The writ petitioner is the absolute owner of an agricultural land, situated at Chinnavarikkam Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, comprised in Survey No.170, measuring extent of 3.10.0 Hectares (7.66 acres), having acquired the same under a Family Partition Deed, dated 13.04.1970. Ever since the date of partition, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and he is also cultivating his lands with pleasure till date. The petitioner further submits that he is an agriculturist and that is the only avocation known to him to lead his life. Moreover, agriculture is the only source of income to him and his family. He further submits that there are well grown mangroves, teak and tamarind trees and they are yielding now. Except the said land, he does not have any other land. While so, to his shock and surprise, during third week of February 2014 some persons, who are representing themselves as contract employees of the respondents Department have attempted to erect a High Tension Electricity Tower in his lands and they further informed him that they will draw the line across / above his lands, thereby cutting all the well grown mango trees under the lines. He was really astonished as to how the respondents are entering into his lands and erecting tower without notice to him.

2. The petitioner further submits that immediately after he objected for erection of High Tension Electricity Tower in his lands without any notice to him, the aforesaid employees informed him that they are carrying out the work at the instructions and instance of their higher ups, viz., the respondents herein and he was advised to approach the respondents and to get necessary relief from his plot being subjected for erecting High Tension Electricity tower and also from drawing High Tension Electricity Lines. Immediately, on 19.02.2014 he went to the office of the respondents 3 and 4 to explain and ventilate grievances and also about his poor economic status, that apart to request them to erect and draw lines in the Government lands, which are suitable just adjacent to his lands, in that event, it would not cause any loss or damage to any public. Unfortunately, the respondents had failed to give him an opportunity to meet them in person and he returned with great disappointment.

3. The petitioner further submits that since the respondents refused to meet him in person, he sent a detailed representation, dated 21.02.2014, to the respondents putting forth his grievances and also requesting them to drop the erection and drawing of the tower line in his lands and also requested them to do the same in the adjacent Government land. He further submits that he categorically informed the respondents that they have not issued any notice to him before commencing the erection of High Tension Electricity Tower and Line through his lands, as the drawing of line causes permanent damage to his cultivation. Having received the notice, the respondents have not considered his representation till date for the reasons best known to them. Further there are sufficient Government lands available just adjacent to his lands and the respondents can very well erect the Electricity Tower and draw the High Tension Lines in the Government lands without causing any trouble or damage to his and others from cultivating the lands. He further submits that once the respondents had erected the tower and drawn the line then, he cannot use the land under the tower and line for cultivation or any other purpose and it will cause permanent loss to him. That apart, the drawing of line across land will reduce or diminish the utility and value of the land. Though there is an alternative lands available for the respondents to draw the line just adjacent to his lands, but without even considering the above aspect and without taking into consideration or account the loss caused to him, the respondents have unilaterally decided to ere