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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
I. Shanmugadurai & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. Nos. 797 of 2006 and 460 of 2007
Decided On : 03-11-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. P.R. Dilip Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Syed Mustafa.

Headnote:Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 Section 17(1) - Consent was not obtained from previous owner of property before laying mine. Compensation was not paid by board by erecting poles which is must requirement. Electricity board cannot retain full amount deposited by individual . As per section 17(1) of Act owner has to give defraying charge for removal or half amount of compensation whichever is smaller. Board can retain only 50% charges.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

W.A.No.797 of 2006 is filed against the order dated 29.03.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22196 of 2004. W.A.No.460 of 2007 is filed against the order dated 27.02.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1447 of 2007.

2. The facts leading to the filing of W.A.No.797 of 2006 are as under:

(i) The petitioner in W.P.No.22196 of 2004 is the respondent in this appeal. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein to shift/remove the electrical 11 kVA power overhead line, erected by the appellants-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the land belonging to him, causing prejudice to his interest in the property. The respondent has also paid the registration charges of Rs.1000/- for shifting the HT poles and Rs.500/- each towards diversion of overhead lines, as demanded by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. But the Board, stating that the respondent has not produced any sketch of his land for shifting the electrical poles, had not proceeded to shift the poles, thus caused great inconvenience to the respondent. Hence the said writ petition was filed.

(ii) On a perusal of the materials available on record, recording the undertaking given by the Board that they will divert the electrical lines from the land of the respondent herein, and also holding that since the respondent has deposited the amount as demanded by the Board towards registration, the question of further payment by the respondent does not arise, this Court allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Board to shift the electrical lines from the land of the respondent, within three months.

(iii) Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

3. The facts leading to the filing of W.A.No.460 of 2007, are as follows:

(i) The petitioner in W.P.No.1447 of 2007 is the appellant in this appeal. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein to shift/remove the electrical 33 kVA power overhead line, erected by the appellants-Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the land belonging to him, causing prejudice to his interest in the property. The appellant approached the respondent-Board requesting to shift and remove the 33kV electrical poles from his land, followed by several representations in this regard, and he also paid the necessary registration charges as demanded by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Since no action has been taken to remove the 33kV electrical poles, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.1447 of 2007.

(ii) While disposing the writ petition, the appellant herein was directed by this Court to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for shifting the electrical lines from his property and on making such payment, the Board was directed to shift the service lines as required by him, within a period of twelve weeks. The learned single Judge also held that since according to the appellant he is not a consumer and hence he need not pay the amount, the question as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the amount or not, shall be decided in the writ appeal filed at the instance of the Board and if the appellant ultimately gets a favourable order in the appeal, the Board shall refund the amount with interest at 8% from the date of deposit till the date of repayment.

(iii) Challenging the said order made in the writ petition, the present appeal is filed by the appellant / petitioner in the writ petition.

4. When the writ appeal in W.A.No.797 of 2006 came up before this Court on 13.07.2006, the respondent agreed to furnish solvent security for securing the claim of the Board to the extent of Rs.16,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of six weeks. Therefore, this Court ordered that the Board shall shift the HT power lines from the land of the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing of security as undertaken by the respondent

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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