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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
T.VADAMALAI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMILNADU – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Writ Petition(MD)No.25564 of 2018 T.Vadamalai .. Petitioner Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St.Fort George, Chennai.

2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai.

3.The Chairman cum Managing Director, TANGEDCO, 10th Floor, NPKRR Maaligai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai.

4.The Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Old Bus Stand, Pudukottai.

5.The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Alangudi Pachkottai, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents No.4 and Respondent No 5 to construct the building of the High tension Power Line in petitioner's property in Pattathi Kadu in Survey No.84-13B, 85-9B, and subsequently direct the appropriate authority to allot some other area for the building of the High Tension Power Line avoiding petitioner's property, in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mrs.S.Jeya Priya Government Advocate (for R1 & R2)

Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel (for R3 to R5)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents No.4 and Respondent No 5 to construct the building of the High tension Power Line in petitioner's property in Pattathi Kadu in Survey No.84-13B, 85-9B, and subsequently direct the appropriate authority to allot some other area for the building of the High Tension Power Line avoiding petitioner's property, in accordance with law.

2. The petitioner would submit that he is residing at the aforementioned address with his children and wife. He is a farmer and entirely dependent on agriculture for his livelihood. Further, would contend that for the past three generations, his family have been carrying on agricultural activities in the said land.

3. It is his contention that previously, no high-voltage power line existed over his property and that the line had been drawn through another area, thereby avoiding his agricultural land. He further submits that he belongs to a Backward Community and alleges that certain wealthy individuals have been using electricity board to avoid the power lines crossing their lands.

4. The petitioner would submit that he is cultivating coconut and banana trees in the said land and that the proposed high-voltage power line, if erected, would pose a risk of coming into contact with the trees during strong winds, which could cause serious fire damage to the property and may also be fatal to the large number of persons working on his lands. 5. On 16.11.2018, the 'Gaja Cyclone' had severely damaged many areas in Tamil Nadu and the petitioner's house and his cultivating lands had also suffered great damage. The paddy planted in his land was completely destroyed. Now, the electricity board planned to put a high voltage power line to his property and despite his representation dated 21.12.2018, the officials of the respondent board are attempting to draw the lines and hence, he is before this Court.

6. A counter statement has been filed by the respondents, in which, it is stated that a high tension (HT) line was already crossing the petitioner's patta land in SF.No.84/13B. During the Gaja Cyclone in the year 2018, it is this line that had been damaged and officers were merely rectifying and relaying the same, to which, an objection was raised. As a result, electricity supply could not be provided to other farmers. Further, the line crosses the petitioner's land only to an extent of 27 meters and there are no poles or tower erected there. The respondents also submits that the lines were fully rectified in the year 2019 itself.

7. During the first hearing, it was contended that the line was drawn despite an interim order of this Court. Accordingly, this Court had directed the res

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top