IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Vai. Palanisamy, Tiruppur & Others - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15077 of 2019 & W.P. Nos. 15055 to 15057 of 2019
Decided On : 26-06-2019
High Tension Transmission Projects - Land Acquisition - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Electricity Act, 2003 - [800 KV HVDC Line, 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line, Pugalur HVDC Station, Arasur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line, Thiruvalam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line, Edayarpalayam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line, Udumalapet 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Electricity Act, 2003 in relation to the acquisition of land for high tension transmission projects. It highlighted the power of the licensee to enter upon lands and the right of landowners to compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The court also emphasized the public interest and the limitations on the authority's power to change the alignment of transmission lines.
Fact of the Case:
Agricultural landowners filed a writ petition seeking to quash paper publications related to high tension transmission projects affecting their lands. They alleged damages to their livelihood, land value, and water resources due to the projects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the projects were of national importance and in the larger public interest. It held that the licensee had the right to enter upon lands and compensate landowners under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the public benefit of the projects and the petitioners' attempts to stall the projects.
Issues: The issues involved the acquisition of land for high tension transmission projects, the rights of landowners, and the public interest in the projects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Electricity Act, 2003, emphasizing the public interest and the authority's power to enter upon lands for the projects.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court emphasized the public benefit of the projects and the petitioners' attempts to stall the projects.
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned paper publications in i). “The New Indian Express, Chennai Edition” dated: 20.04.2016, ii). “The Time of India, Chennai Edition” dated :06.05.2016 & iii). “The New Indian Express, Chennai Edition” dated:20.05.2016 of the 3rd & 11th respondents with respect to the Power Transmission Projects namely.
a. Raigarh to Pugalur 800 KV HVDC Line.
b. Pugalur to North Thrissur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
c. Pugalur HVDC Station – Pugalur Existing 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
d. Pugalur HVDC Station – Arasur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
e. Pugalur HVDC Station – Thiruvalam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
f. Pugalur HVDC Station – Edayarpalayam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
g. Edayarpalayam – Udumalapet 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
of the 3rd & 11th respondents and quash the same and subsequently direct the 3rd & 11th respondents to issue Fresh paper publications/Notifications with respect to the above Projects with detailed description of the Affected lands & also with the provision of the Hearing objections of such affected land owners by a Third-Party Competent Authority.)
1. The petitioner herein are Agricultural land owners in the districts of Tiruppur, Coimbatore, Dharmapuri, Namakkal, Erode, Salem, Villupuram District of Tamil Nadu. Alleging that they are affected by the erection of High Tension Transmission Towers and corridors of Power Transmission project carried by Power Grid Corporation of India/3rd respondent herein has filed this present Writ Petition, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the paper publication made in daily English newspaper during the month of April and May 2016, with respect to the following Power Transmission Projects.
a. Raigarh to Pugalur 800 KV HVDC Line.
b. Pugalur to North Thrissur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
c. Pugalur HVDC Station – Pugalur Existing 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
d. Pugalur HVDC Station – Arasur 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
e. Pugalur HVDC Station – Thiruvalam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
f. Pugalur HVDC Station – Edayarpalayam 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
g. Edayarpalayam – Udumalapet 400 KV (Quad) D/C Line.
2.It is contended in the affidavit filed by the 11 petitioners herein, who claims to be land owners likely to be affected by the projects, that the Central Electricity Authority/2nd respondent herein, gave prior approval to the Power Grid Corporation of India/3rd respondent herein, for these following three schemes.
1. Scheme # 1: Raigarh – Pugalur 6000 MW HVDC System
2. Scheme # 2: AC System Strengthening at Pugalur and
3. Scheme # 3: Pugalur – Trichur 2000 MW VSC Based HVDC System
3.The said High Tension Transmission Projects is to erect the Towers and overhead lines through the specific route, which passes through the petitioners' land. While implementing the said project, the petitioners' apprehend that the following damages are likely to cause to them and their land.
i. Fragmentation of Agricultural Lands: The lands to the acquired for this project mostly belongs to small farmers having merely 1 to 2 Acres of lands. The Route does not run along the sides of the Fields, rather it runs across the fields. No Borewell was allowed to be laid even for the purpose of irrigation. Hence raises the Question over the Future livelihood of the farmers, whose lands are to be acquired.
ii. Restriction of Cultivation: The Districts, though which the Tower lines passes, are already facing heavy shortage of Agricultural Labourers. So the farmers in the above said districts already migrated to the Cultivation of long Term Crops such as Coconut, Mango etc., which requires less Manpower. But these projects restrict the farmers from cultivating the above said crops. Because of this yearly cultivation and Harvest & Income are stalled, in turn the future of the families of the farmers is lef
Om Prakash Sharma & Ors Vs. M.P.Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam & Ors reported in 2005 10 SCC 306
M.C.Metha Vs. Kamal Nath reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388
Manohar Vs. State of Maharastra
Muthu Associates and another Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2013 (14) SCC 304
A.K.Kraipak and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1969 (2) SCC 262
C.B.Gautham Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1993 (1) SCC 78
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.