SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Mad) 1594

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.S. KARNAN, J.
R. Saraswathi
Versus
The Senior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Others
W.P. No. 12010 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014
Decided on: 25-06-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:R. Munuswamy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P.H. Aravind Pandian, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Varun Kumar, Advocate.

The power of the respondents to enter and erect the tower without prior notice, the necessity of adequate compensation for the landowner, and the public welfare aspect of the project.

Headnote:

Electricity Tower - Property Rights - Tamil Nadu Electricity Act 2003, Section 164, Section 185(2)(a), Indian Telegraphic Act 1885, Section 10 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act 2003, Indian Telegraphic Act 1885, and the rights of the landowner in the context of erecting High Tension Electricity Tower and Line on private property. The court emphasized the power of the respondents to enter and erect the tower without prior notice, the necessity of adequate compensation for the landowner, and the public welfare aspect of the project.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an agriculturist, owned agricultural land on which the respondents attempted to erect a High Tension Electricity Tower without notice, causing potential damage to her cultivation and income. The petitioner's objections were not considered, and the respondents proceeded with the project.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the property belonged to the petitioner, and the respondents were erecting the tower for the welfare of the general public. The petitioner was entitled to receive adequate compensation for the damage caused to her crops and land.

Issues: Violation of property rights, necessity of prior notice, public welfare vs. individual rights, entitlement to compensation

Ratio Decidendi: The respondents had the power to enter and erect the tower without prior notice, but the petitioner was entitled to adequate compensation for the damage caused to her crops and land. The court permitted the respondents to proceed with the project over the petitioner's land.

Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to file an application for compensation, and the respondents were instructed to assess the compensation considering the damage caused. The respondents were permitted to proceed with the project over the petitioner's land.

JUDGMENT

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

1. The writ petitioner is the absolute owner of an agricultural land, situated at Chinnavarikkam Village, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District, comprised in Survey No.172/1B, measuring extent of 0.45.0 hectares (1.11 acres) and in Survey No.186/2A, measuring extent of 0.69.5 hectares (1.72 acres), totally measuring extent of 2.83 acres. She is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property and she is also cultivating her land with pleasure till date. The petitioner further submits that she is an agriculturist and that is the only avocation known to her to lead her life. Moreover, agriculture is the only source of income to her and her family. She further submits that there are well grown mangroves in part of the lands and the remaining lands are being used for cultivation of groundnut, which are yielding now. Except the said land, she does not have any other land. While so, to her shock and surprise, during third week of March 2014 some persons, who are representing themselves as contract employees of the respondents Department have attempted to erect a High Tension Electricity Tower in her lands and they further informed her that they will draw the line across / above her lands, thereby cutting all the well grown mango trees under the lines. She was really astonished as to how the respondents are entering into her lands and erecting tower without notice to her.

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

3. The petitioner further submits that since the respondents refused to meet her in person, she sent a detailed representation, dated 15.04.2014, to the respondents putting forth her grievances and also requesting them to drop the erection and drawing of the tower line in her lands and also requested them to do the same in the adjacent Government land. She further submits that she categorically informed the respondents that they have not issued any notice to her before commencing the erection of High Tension Electricity Tower and Line through her lands, as the drawing of line causes permanent damage to her cultivation. Having received the notice, the respondents have not considered her representation till date for the reasons best known to them. Further there are sufficient Government lands available just adjacent to her 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 her and others from cultivating the lands. She further submits that once the respondents had erected the tower and drawn the line then, she cannot use the land under the tower and line for cultivation or any other purpose and it will cause permanent loss to her. 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 her lands, but without even considering the above aspect and without taking into consideration or account the loss















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top