J U D G M E N T

[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Ms.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2020 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7234 of 2020.

3. The appellant filed the said writ petition seeking direction to the first respondent to consider his objection dated 01.07.2019 regarding erection of electric towers and drawal of overhead electric lines to evacuate electricity generated by the Wind Mills established by the third respondent – Company. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that for a similar relief, the appellant / writ petitioner came before this Court on the earlier occasion in W.P.(MD) No.18225 of 2019 and the said writ petition was dismissed and with regard to the plea raised by the appellant / writ petitioner that the third respondent is an encroacher, the Writ Court observed that if there is any dispute with regard to the title to the property, then it is for the appellant /

writ petitioner to approach the Civil Court.

4. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, learned counsel for the third respondent – Company, would strenuously contend that the learned Single Bench was right in dismissing the second writ petition for the same relief and the appellant / writ petitioner was having suffered an order before the Division Bench in the earlier writ petition.

5. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, we are not inclined to accept the entire reasonings of the learned Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition.

Firstly, we need to take note of the facts pleaded in the representation of the appellant / writ petitioner dated 01.07.2019. The representation of the appellant / writ petitioner should be read as a letter addressed by a person of reasonable intelligence and knowledge. Though in the representation the third respondent was termed as a trespasser, the sum and substance of the representation is that the land owner has been dealt with unreasonably at the behest of the third respondent - Company by erecting towers and drawal of overhead electric lines for a Private Company. The Division Bench earlier dismissed the writ petition by order dated 26.08.2019 as it appears that what was canvassed before the Division Bench was that the third respondent is an encroacher. Therefore, the Division Bench was right in rejecting the writ petition. Sofar as the second writ petition is concerned, which has been dismissed by the impugned order, the prayer sought for is slightly different in the sense that the appellant / writ petitioner wants his objection to be considered. Bearing that prayer in mind, if we read the representation, apart from the allegation of the third respondent being trespasser, there are other objections conveyed. Therefore, as pointed out earlier, we are not in full agreement with the observations made by the Single Bench. Be that as it may, towers have already been erected, overhead electric lines have also been drawn and electricity has been evacuated through those lines. Therefore, the only issue, which remains for consideration is whether the appellant / writ petition is entitled for compensation, which requires to be determined by the first respondent / District Collector.

6. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent – Company that compensation has been made to the appellant's co-owner, which fact has also been noted by the learned Single Bench in the impugned order. Sofar as the appellant / writ petitioner is concerned, if he is co-owner of the property, his rights cannot be