T. Narayanan v. The District Executive Magistrate-cum- District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram

to 106, 107/1, 2 and 3, 108, 118/1, 2 and 3, 119, 120/1 and 4,121/1, 124, 125/1 and 2, 126, 127, 128/2, 129, 130, 142/1 and 2,144 Part, 146, 147/1 to 5, 148/1 to 4 of an extent of 23.88. ½acres in 79, Gudalur Village within Maraimalai Nagar TownPanchayat, Chingleput Taluk, Kancheepuram District.2. According to the petitioner, he is a businessman engagedin developing layouts of house sites by acquiring various parcelsof land from various owners, making them contiguous and forminglayouts consisting of several housing plots after providing openspace, public roads, culverts, etc. and selling the same tovarious persons desirous of purchasing house sites. While so, hedeveloped a layout of house sites over an extent of 23.88.1/2acres of land in various survey nos. of Gudalur Vilalge,Chingelput Taluk, Kancheepuram District falling within theMaraimalai Nagar Town Panchayat and submitted necessaryapplications to the Maraimalai Nagar Town Panchayat which was dulyapproved under proceedings dated 02.05.2007. He remitted a sum ofRs.24,60,000/- towards approval charges and developmental chargesand the layout plan was approved vide a resolution dated30.04.2007. The petitioner started selling house plots to variouspersons and still holds several plots readily available for saleand he is responsible to ensure that the various purchasers of therespective plots derive full benefit out of their purchase andthat they are not deprived of any of their rights by any action byany person against the title and possession of the property. Thatbeing the position, some pits were dug in his lands by the agentsof second respondent Corporation and hence, he was was constrainedto file a writ petition in W.P. No.49172 of 2006 seeking a writ ofmandamus which was disposed of in the following terms: “..The Power Grid Corporation shall,as early as it deems fit, approach the DistrictMagistrate concerned in each case for permissionto deal with the objections raised by thepetitioners in each case and the said DistrictMagistrate shall consider the objections andpass orders in accordance with the provisionswhich have been extracted above.”3. Pursuant to the said order, based on a requisition letterdated 25.01.2007 from the Chief Manager of the second respondent,the first respondent, by a notice dated 05.02.2007, called uponthe petitioner to appear before him on 19.02.2007 to put forth hisobjections, in respect of exercise of powers of Telegraphauthority under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating thatif the power line towers are erected in the approved layout, itwill severely affect various purchasers and himself as there areseveral unsold plots and since 40 ft. on both sides of the powerline has to be kept vacant, 700 x 33 metres of land will be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rendered useless. Subsequently, though the relevant sale deeds andlayout approvals were submitted for consideration of the firstrespondent, by proceedings dated 23.05.2007, the first respondentoverruled the petitioner’s objections stating that his reasons arepurely out of commercial interest and the proposed park area hasno commercial value to him as a promoter and that the alignmentsuggested by him was not technically feasible. Aggrieved over thesaid order, this Writ Petition has been filed on the grounds that: a. the impugned order of the firstrespondent permitting the second respondent to carry outthe work of erecting high tension power lines throughthe lands of the petitioner as per Section 16(1) and (2)of the Indian Telegraph Act, is arbitrary, illegal,unjust and unsustainable in law. b. the first respondent failed toconsider the materials produced by the petitioner andhas not assigned any reason as to why the change in thealignments could not be resorted to and has also failedto exercise his jurisdiction and power. c. the impugned order of the firstrespondent remains silent as to the report and documentssubmitted by the Tahsildar of Chingleput Taluk and theVillage Administrative Officer of Gudalur Village whohad submitted that enough poramboke and Governmentvacant lands are available and the project could beexecuted without disturbing private properties and thechange in the alignment through such poramboke andGovernment lands is feasible, and d. the failure to determine thecompensation also vitiates the passing of the impugnedorder.4. The first respondent/District Collector has filed acounter, stating that the omission to state and give particularsin W.P.No.49172 of 2006 about the proposed transmission linesbeing sought to be carried through the said lands cannot be bymistake and due to petitioner's lack of knowledge; the petitionerwas not ignorant of the fact that power transmission lines havebeen proposed through the lands; however, suppressing this factthe petitioner had sought for and obtained approval of the lay-out; the petitioner, knowing fully well about the consequences ofthe proposed power transmission lines through the lands, hadproposed and laid the layout plots; pursuant to the orders of theCourt in W.P.No.49172 of 2006, the first respondent issued notice,heard the petitioner's objections, considered the same and passedthe order, dated 23.05.2007, permitting the Corporation to carryout the work; as such, the Corporation has been carrying out the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ work of transmission power line and, hence, the petitioner is notentitled to make any complaint, as the provisions of the Act havebeen duly complied with.5. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner andthe officials of the second respondent were heard and the orderwas passed by the first respondent, rejecting the objectionsraised by the objector, keeping in mind the fact that the saidtransmission of electricity was an essential service and for thereason that the alignment as suggested by the objector was nottechnically feasible. Further, various modalities, ways and meanswere considered and thereafter it was found that it was nottechnically feasible to change the proposed alignment. The firstrespondent considered all the aspects of the matter before passingthe order, granting permission to the second respondent to proceedwith the proposed erection of electric transmission towers. Thepetitioner is entitled to any quantum of compensation, if at allthe immovable property is damaged, that too the issue of payingcompensation and receiving it is between the petitioner and theTelegraph Authority viz., Power Grid Corporation, as per theprovisions of Section 16 (3) read with Section 10 (d). Thecontention of the petitioner that the first respondent is theauthority to decide compensation is quite incorrect andirrelevant. The order is passed in public interest and the sameis not liable to be stayed or set aside.6. The further case of the District Collector is that he hadperused the records and written statement filed by both the landowners and the officials of Power Grid Corporation of IndiaLimited and enquired them on 19.02.2007 and had discussions withthe officials of Power Grid Corporation and the land owners.Hence, the order passed by the first respondent is not vitiated byany infirmity and it is legally and constitutionally valid andmaintainable and, as such, the Writ Petition is liable to bedismissed.7. The second respondent Corporation has filed a counter,stating as follows:(a)It is the Central Transmission Utility under theMinistry of Power and has been entrusted with theconstruction of Sriperambudur to Kalivanthapattu 400 KVD/C Power Transmission Line comprising 94 Towers with alength of 30.673 kms. at a total cost of Rs.588.25crores; the scheme is duly approved by Government ofIndia to provide quality power at large with greaterreliability particularly to theagricultural/residential/commercial establishments forthe State of Tamil Nadu in general and South Chennai inparticular and will be a big boost to the industrial andagricultural growth in the State and it is executing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ project after observing all legal procedures and as perthe existing provisions under the Electricity Act,Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885,Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the Woks of LicenseesRules, 2006. (b) Sriperambudur to Kalivanthapattu 400 KV D/C PowerTransmission Line is of 30.673 kms. length and has 94towers in the entire section against which foundationwork has been completed at 72 locations and 18 towershave been erected and the erection of balance towers isin progress and the project is expected to the completedand commissioned by September 2007 as per schedule.(c) While fixing the transmission line route, only themost techno-economically feasible route is chosencausing least damage after complying with the statutoryclearances and avoiding places of inhabitation, worshipand densely populated areas.(d) Since the transmission line requires a clearcorridor of 48 metres only i.e. 24 metres on either sidefrom the centre of the transmission line, all crops canbe cultivated and the fruit-bearing trees of shortheight can be grown and building put up by maintainingsufficient safety electric clearance as per theElectricity Rules, 1956. (e) The transmission line would not have any impacton human beings, animals, plants, etc. or on thegeological or ecological system beyond the statutoryclearance/norms provided by the Indian ElectricityRules, 1956.(f) The laying of tower in the land will not renderthe land unusable as alleged and such a statement ismade only with a view to mislead this Court inasmuch asit does not require the land but for erection of towers.(g) Once the order is passed by the firstrespondent/District Collector under Section 16 (1) ofthe Indian Telegraph Act, permitting this respondent tocarry out the work for laying of tower lines in thepetitioners property as per Section 16 (2) of the Act,the petitioner has to provide all assistance to thisrespondent for carrying out the works and if anyobjection is made by the petitioner, it will amount toan offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Codeand the petitioner can be prosecuted for the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (h) The second respondent is implementing the projectof the Central Government and the same is for thebenefit of the general public at large including thepetitioner in the long run and that the interest ofgeneral public is of utmost importance than the interestof a particular individual.8. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner, has contended that the first respondent went wrong inpassing a non-speaking order by simply recording the contentionsof the respective parties and not recording the reasons forrejecting the objections of the petitioners and he ought to haveconsidered the objections of the petitioners that the erection ofTowers in the land belonging to the petitioner would make theentire land measuring an extent of 23.88 acres unusable forconstruction of houses. It is the further contention of thelearned Senior Counsel that the first respondent ought to haveseen that as per sub rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Works of LicenseeRules 2006, he has to fix the compensation or annual rent or both,which should in his opinion be paid by the licensee to the owneror occupier, but he has not fixed the amount of compensation orannual rent as mandated by the provisions of the Works of LicenseeRules 2006; the first respondent also went wrong in notconsidering the objection of the petitioner that the proposedpower line be diverted through the other poramboke lands availableimmediately next to the layouts and by overruling the saidobjection, the first respondent, without assigning any reasons,permitted the second respondent to carry out the work of erectinghigh tension power lines through the petitioner's lands, which isarbitrary, illegal, unjust and unsustainable in law and,therefore, the order passed by the first respondent cannot besustained and the same is liable to be quashed.9. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counselfor the petitioner has cited the following decisions :(i)AIR 1963 SC 375, State of Mysore and others vs.Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur :"3...For a correct appreciation of the position,it is necessary to repeat what has often been saidthat tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functionsare not Courts and that therefore they are not boundto follow the procedures prescribed for trial ofactions in Courts nor are they bound by strict rulesof evidence. They can, unlike Courts, obtain allinformation material for the points under enquiryfrom all sources and through all channels, withoutbeing fettered by rules and procedure which governproceedings in Court. The only obligation which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law casts on them is that they should not act on anyinformation which they may receive unless they put itto the party against whom it is to be used and givenhim a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fairopportunity must depend on the facts andcircumstances of each case but where such anopportunity had been given, the proceedings are notopen to attack on the ground that the enquiry was notconducted in accordance with the procedure followedin Courts.(ii) AIR 1969 SC 48, Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union ofIndia : “8. If the power exercised by the Collector was aquasi-judicial power-as we hold it to be-that powercannot be controlled by the directions issued by theBoard. No authority however high placed can controlthe decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicialauthority. That is the essence of our judicialsystem. There is no provision in the Act empoweringthe Board to issue directions to the assessingauthorities or the appellate authorities in thematter of deciding disputes between the persons whoare called upon to pay duty and the department. Itis true that the assessing authorities as well as theappellate authorities are judges in their own cause;yet when they are called upon to decide disputesarising under the Act they must act independently andimpartially. They cannot be said to actindependently if their judgment is controlled by thedirections given by others. Then it is a misnomer tocall their orders as their judgments; they wouldessentially be the judgments of the authority thatgave the directions and which authority had giventhose judgments without hearing the aggrieved party.The only provision under which the Board can issuedirections is Rule 233 of the Rules framed under theAct. The rule says that the Board and the Collectorsmay issue written instructions providing for anysupplemental matters arising out of these Rules.Under this rule, the only instruction that the Boardcan issue is that relating to administrative matters;otherwise that rule will have to be considered asultra vires Section 35 of the Act.(iii) AIR 1990 SC 1984, S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India :" 34.The decisions of this Court referred to aboveindicate that with regard to the requirement to recordreasons the approach of this Court is more in line with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that of the American Courts. An importantconsideration which was weighed with the Court forholding that an administrative authority exercisingquasi-judicial functions must record the reasons forits decision, is that such a decision is subject to theappellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136of the Constitution as well as the supervisoryjurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 ofthe Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded,would enable this Court or the High Courts toeffectively exercise the appellate or supervisorypower. But this is not the sole consideration. Theother considerations which have also weighed with theCourt in taking this view are that the requirement ofrecording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration bythe authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions;and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness indecision-making. In this regard a distinction has beendrawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals andauthorities exercising judicial functions on the groundthat a Judge is trained to look at things objectivelyuninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediencywhereas an executive officer generally looks at thingsfrom the stand point of policy and expediency.35.Reasons, when recorded by an administrativeauthority in an order passed by it while exercisingquasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate theexercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate orsupervisory authority. But the other considerations,referred to above, which have also weighed with thisCourt in holding that an administrative authority mustrecord reasons for its decision are of no lesssignificance. These considerations show that therecording of reasons by an administrative authorityserves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chancesof arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness inthe process of decisions-making. The said purposewould apply equally to all decisions and itsapplication cannot be confined to decisions which aresubject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In ouropinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons berecorded should govern the decisions of anadministrative authority exercising quasi-judicialfunctions irrespective of the fact whether the decisionis subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. Itmay, however, be added that it is no required that thereasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of aCourt of law. The extent and nature of the reasonswould depend on particular facts and circumstances.What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ explicit so as to indicate that the authority has givendue consideration to the points in controversy. Theneed for recording of reasons is greater in a casewhere the order is passed at the original stage. Theappellate or revisional authority, if it affirms suchan order, need not give separate reasons if theappellate or revisional authority agrees with thereasons contained in the order under challenge."(iv) AIR 1998 Kerala 124, Valsamma Thomas vs. AdditionalDistrict Magistrate, Alappuzha and another :"12.Thus, on review of the authorities of thisquestion, we come to the following conclusions:(1)The District Magistrate has to exercise hisdiscretion judicially.(2)He has to pass the order under Section 16(1) of theTelegraph Act, after hearing the parties and aftertaking such evidence as is required with regard to theobjections raised.(3)The order passed by the court should be a speakingorder.(4)The order should reflect the objections raised bythe parties and the reasons given by the Magistratefor accepting or rejecting the same.(5)The order should also reflect the materials reliedon by the District Magistrate for arriving at theconclusion.If the discretion is exercised by the DistrictMagistrate as above, then unless it is shown that thefindings are perverse or that the proceedings arevitiated by mala fides this Court will not be justifiedin interfering with such orders. This Court will notbe justified in substituting its own opinion. It isalso worth bearing in mind that this Court has not gottechnical expertise and will be slow to interfere withsuch matters."(v) (2003) 4 SCC 557, Canara Bank and others vs. Debasis Dasand others : " 19. Concept of natural justice has undergone agreat deal of change in recent years. Rules of naturaljustice are not rules embodied always expressly in astatute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ implied from the nature of the duty to be performedunder a statute. What particular rule of naturaljustice should be implied and what its context shouldbe in a given case must depend to a grant extent on thefacts and circumstances of that case, the framework ofthe statute under which the enquiry is held. The olddistinction between a judicial act and anadministrative act has withered away. Even anadministrative order which involves civil consequencesmust be consistent with the rules of natural justice.The expression "civil consequences" encompassesinfraction of not merely property or personal rightsbut of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comeseverything that affects a citizen in his civil life."10. Per contra, Mr.Hasan Fazal, learned GovernmentAdvocate, appearing for the first respondent/District Collectorhas contended that the District Collector, who is also aMagistrate under the Act, has considered the entire objectionsraised by the petitioner independently and passed an order underSection 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, overruling theobjections of the petitioners, stating that the objections of thepetitioner are purely based on commercial interests and thuspermitting the Corporation to take the power line through the landowned by the petitioner. The learned Government Advocatestrengthened his submissions on "eminent domain", pointing outthat in the interest of greater public purposes, the individualinterest cannot be against it and the authorities have every rightto take note of the public interest over the individual interest.Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by theDistrict Collector and the same cannot be interfered with.11. On the other hand, Mr.Jayesh Dolia, learned counselappearing for the Corporation, has strenuously contended that theCorporation is the Central Transmission Utility under the Ministryof Power and has been entrusted with the Project to providequality power at large with greater reliability particularly tothe agricultural, residential and commercial establishments forthe State of Tamil Nadu and it is executing the project afterobserving all legal procedures under the provisions of the Act andthe Rules. He also submitted that in the entire section of theproject, foundation work has been completed at 72 locations and 18towers have been erected and the erection of balance towers is inprogress and it is a time bound project to be completed andcommissioned by September,2007 as per schedule and because of thependency of the writ petitions, they could not proceed further.The learned counsel made a point that the Government of India, inexercise of powers conferred by Section 164 of the ElectricityAct, 2003, has passed an order dated 24.12.2003 to exercise allpowers vested in the Telegraph Authority in respect of electrical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lines and electrical plants established or maintained fortransmission of electricity or for the purpose of telephonic ortelegraphic communication necessary for the proper coordination ofwork. Also, according to the learned counsel, as per Section 10 ofthe Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it is not necessary to issuepersonal notice or to get prior consent from the private landowners and as per Section 10(c) of the said Act, if the propertyis vested in or under the control of any local authority, then, itis necessary for the Corporation to get permission from suchauthority. He vehemently contended that the transmission lineroute is as per the experts opinion and the most techno-economically feasible route is chosen, causing least damage aftercomplying with the statutory clearances and avoiding places ofinhabitation, worship and densely populated areas, including thegeological or ecological system. Therefore, the whole processundertaken by the Corporation is for a public purpose and any re-alignment of this line at this advanced stage is not at alltechno-economically feasible and any delay in completing theproject or alteration in route will cause heavy loss to theGovernment exchequer. Hence, in the absence of any valid reasonsto object to the erection of transmission lines and when there islarger public interest involved in the project and also there isno damage to the properties of the petitioner, the petitionerscannot stall the project by invoking the jurisdiction underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.12. In support of their contentions, learned counsel forthe respondents have cited the following decisions :(i)AIR 1972 Kerala 47, Bharat Plywood and Timber ProductsPrivate Ltd. vs. Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum andothers :"23. It is clear from the wording of Section 16and particularly from the expression "the DistrictMagistrate may, in his discretion", that an order willnot be forthcoming automatically. A DistrictMagistrate may in his discretion in a given case refuseor decline to pass an order that the telegraphauthority shall be permitted to exercise the powers.The wording is significant. The District Magistratedoes not grant permission to the authority. But, heorders that the authority "shall be permitted." Thediscretion conferred by the section on the DistrictMagistrate is certainly a judicial discretion, and, incases where the District Magistrate refuses to pass anorder that the telegraph authority shall be permittedto exercise the powers mentioned in Section 10, it isinconceivable that the telegraph authority may,notwithstanding such refusal, continue to exercise suchpowers. The wording of the section is thus itself https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ indicative of the fact that in cases of resistance orobstruction the District Magistrate will have to decidewhether the authority should be permitted or not toexercise the powers under Section 16 of the TelegraphAct. This necessarily means that the telegraphauthority cannot override or ignore the resistance orobstruction and continue to exercise the powers underSection 10 notwithstanding such resistance orobstruction. It follows that, when an owner oroccupier resists or obstructs the exercise of the powerunder Section 10, the telegraph authority will have toapproach the District Magistrate for an order undersub-section (1) of an order under sub-section (1) ofS.16 and can exercise the power under Section 10 onlyin cases where the District Magistrate deems it fit topass an order that he shall be permitted to do so. Thepower conferred by Section 10 is thus a conditionalpower; conditional on an order being passed underSection 16(1) by the District Magistrate that theauthority may be permitted, in case of resistance orobstruction, to exercise the power. This is so notonly in regard to a telegraph authority but to thepublic officer or any other person authorised under theElectricity Act." (ii) 1994 WLR 445, M.Nithyanandam and two others vs. TheChairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras-2 and others :" 26.The above section, in my opinion, givesauthority for placing the poles or the towers in aprivate land and clause (d) referred to above providesfor payment of compensation. S.16(1) provides for theBoard approaching the District Magistrate in case ofresistance by the owner. S.16(3) provides for the modefor fixing the compensation in case of disputeregarding the sufficiency of the compensation.27.In the light of the non-obstante clause inS.42, excluding in categoric terms the applicability ofSections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian ElectricityAct, 1910, in any considered opinion, it is not open tothe petitioners to rely on S.12 of the IndianElectricity Act, 1910. As stated above, thepetitioners strongly relied on the decision reported in1959 (II) MLJ 446. In that case, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed,J., was pleased to deal only with the scope of S.12.The scope of S.42 was apparently not brought to thenotice of the learned Judge. Therefore, thepetitioners herein cannot call in aid the saiddecision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28.It was argued by Mr.A.Venkatesan, learnedcounsel for the petitioners, that the learned Judge hadobserved in the above decision that only apparatus andappliances to be placed and high tension wire cannot atall be used or put up. The petitioners cannot relyupon the observations made by the learned Judge.Provisions of S.42 are very clear and at the end of the20th century, it is no longer open to anybody to contendthe high tension towers cannot be put up."(iii)AIR 1995 Kerala 1, A.M.Ismail and othersetc., vs. Union of India and others :"8.On a survey of these authorities, it is clearthat the District Magistrate is discharging anadministrative function and the general principle ofnatural justice and other procedural regulations wouldapply. The contention of the petitioners that theDistrict Magistrate is given unlimited power and,therefore, the said provision is illegal cannot beaccepted. The District Magistrate hears objectors andconsider whether the objections raised by the propertyowners are reasonable. If the District Magistrate isof the view that it is not proper to draw line throughthe objections' property he shall decline permission todraw line through their property. If, on the otherhand, the District Magistrate, finds that the objectorsare raising frivolous objectors, the DistrictMagistrate is competent to rule out such objections anddirect the authorities to draw the proposed line.Therefore, I do not find that Section 16(1) of theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885 is in any way violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution. 10.Coming to the facts of the cases,petitioners' objection is that there are alternatelines and this was not considered by the DistrictMagistrate. It may be noticed that this line wasproposed in 1992 and because of the obstruction itcould not be drawn. The proposal is to draw 3 K.M.Long 11 K.V. Line for the purpose of voltageimprovement and by the proposed scheme about 400persons are benefited. There is also proposal toinstal a transformer at Edayirickapuzha. Most of thepetitioners are also benefited by the proposed line.It is true that some of the petitioners will have tosuffer a little inconvenience by the drawal of theselines. But considering the benefit that may derive tothe consumers, the objections raised by the petitionersare not weighty and the District Magistrate rightly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ overruled these objections. The question waselaborately considered by the District Magistraterightly overruled these objections. The question waselaborately considered by the District Magistrate andthe alternate suggestion to construct the line alongthe public road was also found not feasible. It isalso pointed out that the route is by the side of athodu and the petitioners are not seriously affected inthe sense that their trees are not to be cut andremoved to a greater extent."(iv)AIR 1997 Madras 64, E.Venkatesan and others vs.Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras and others :"20. In this case, the fact that there was anotification in 1961 is not a matter in dispute.Subsequently proceedings have been issued by the firstrespondent on 18.12.1993 whereby the scheme wasapproved, and it was also declared that the Board willexercise power of Telegraph Authority under Section 45of the Electricity Supply Act, and, therefore, theElectricity Board shall not be bound by the provisionsof Sections 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the IndianElectricity Act, 1910. In view of the notification andalso the approved Scheme, no argument can be putforward by the petitioners that the officers of theElectricity Board are not entitled to enter theproperty or to draw the electric line. Once the powerunder the Telegraphs Act is given to the publicofficers of the Board, they are also entitled to digpits and also instal towers over the property. Thequestion of consent from the petitioners does not arisefor consideration, nor is it required under law."(v)A decision of the Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No.572 of 2001 in the case of The Chairman, Power GridCorporation of India Ltd. and another vs. Vivasaya VizhipunarvuIyakkam :"4.Mr.Dolia, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the appellants says that the direction by the learnedsingle Judge is beyond the scope of Section 10 of theTelegraphs Act. He says that the Act nowhere providesthat while erecting the lines, the compensation shouldbe decided in advance, and then alone the trees shouldbe cut, whereas, the respondents herein and the originalpetitioners before the learned single Judge veryearnestly point out that once the trees are cut, therewould be no question of firstly their identification andsecondly about a proper compensation being decided upon, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as in that case, the concerned authorities would nothave, anything available to know about the age andcapacity of yield, etc."(vi)An unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.49172 of2006, etc. batch of cases :"22. In at least one writ petition, it iscontended that instead of the transmission towers beinginstalled in a straight line, there is a deviation.For this, there may be perfectly justifiable technicalexplanation on the side of the Corporation. Thisproject has been conceived by technical experts, andconsidering the magnitude of the project and the factthat it covers large extent of land running throughmany districts, the minor deviations that thepetitioner alleges must be ignored. However, it is thejurisdiction of the District Magistrate to consider theobjections, and it will be possible for the objector aswell as the Corporation to explain before the DistrictMagistrate the manner in which the land lies and proveeither that the erection of the transmission towers isimproper or that the erection of the towers has beendone in the optimum manner possible and that therecould be no other way of doing it."(vii) A recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in(2007) 1 SCC 641 in the matter of Daulat Singh Surana & others vs.First Land Acquisition Collector and others : “68. The right of eminent domain is the right ofthe State to reassert either temporarily or permanentlyits dominion over any piece of land on account ofpublic exigency and for public good.74. The power of compulsory acquisition asdescribed by the term “eminent domain” can be exercisedonly in the interest and for the welfare of the people.The concept of public purpose should include thematters, such as, safety, security, health, welfare andprosperity of the community or public at large.75. The concept of “eminent domain” is an essentialattribute of every State. This concept is based on thefundamental principle that the interest and claim ofthe whole community is always superior to the interestof an individual.”13. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties andperused the material available on record, the relevant provisionsof the Act and the Rules and also the decisions cited by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the parties.14. Power Grid Corporation of India Limited has beenentrusted with the construction of Sriperambudur toKalivanthapattu 400 KV D/C Power Transmission Line comprising 94Towers with a length of 30.673 kms. at a total cost of Rs.588.25crores. The said scheme is duly approved by Government of India toprovide quality power at large with greater reliabilityparticularly to the agricultural/residential/commercialestablishments for the State of Tamil Nadu in general and SouthChennai in particular and will be a big boost to the industrialand agricultural growth in the State. The Corporation is anauthority to execute the project after observing all legalprocedures and as per the existing provisions under theElectricity Act, Sections 10 to 19 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885, Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 and the Woks of LicenseesRules, 2006. It appears that the project work has commenced and itis a time bound project. Out of 94 towers in the entire area,foundation work has been completed at 72 locations and 18 towershave been erected and the erection of balance towers is inprogress and the project is expected to the completed andcommissioned by September 2007 as per schedule. 15. As per Section 14 of the Electricity Act,2003, CentralTransmission Utility shall be deemed to be a Transmission Licenseeand as per Section 164 of the Act, the appropriate Government mayby order in writing for the placing of electric lines orelectrical plant for the transmission of electricity confer uponthe Licensee any of the powers which the Telegraph Authoritypossesses. Accordingly, the Power Grid Corporation has beenentrusted with the power to exercise all the powers in respect ofelectrical lines and electrical plants established or maintainedfor transmission of electricity or for the proper coordination ofwork.16. Similarly, as per Section 10 of the Indian TelegraphAct, it is not necessary to issue personal notice or get priorconsent from the private land owners and as per Section 10 (c), ifthe property is vested in or under the control of any localauthority, it is necessary for the Corporation to get permissionfrom such authority.17. It transpires that the project has been taken overand the route finalised on expert opinion and also taking note ofthe techno-economically feasible route and it is causing leastdamage after complying with the statutory clearances. Further,the viability of erecting such a transmission line takes the mosttechno-economically feasible route avoiding places ofinhabitation, worship and densely populated areas. It is seen thatsince the transmission line requires a clear corridor of 48 metresonly i.e., 24 metres on either side from the centre of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transmission line, all crops can be cultivated and fruit bearingtrees of short height can be grown and building put up bymaintaining sufficient safety electric clearance as per theElectricity Rules,1956, and this transmission line would not haveany impact on human beings, animals, plants etc. or on thegeological or ecological system beyond the statutory clearance.Therefore, the whole process undertaken by the respondent is for apublic purpose and any re-alignment of this line at this advancedstage is not at all techno-economically feasible.18. Earlier, this petitioner moved this Court by filinga Writ Petition, before exhausting the remedy under the relevantprovisions of the Act. On a careful consideration of the matterand upon perusing the entire materials, this Court passed an orderon 18.01.2007 in W.P.No.49172 of 2006 and other connected mattersand disposed of all the petitions with the following direction :"The Power Grid Corporation shall, as earlyas it deems fit, approach the DistrictMagistrate concerned in each case forpermission to deal with the objections raisedby the petitioners in each case and the saidDistrict Magistrate shall consider theobjections and pass orders in accordance withthe provisions which have been extracted above.This project involves huge expenditure andtherefore, we cannot permit any avoidabledelay. The petitioners cannot think that byavoiding any notice or summons from theDistrict Magistrate, they can indefinitelydelay the matter. Immediately on receipt ofthe request by the Corporation for permission,the District Magistrate shall issue notice tothe respective objectors and after hearingtheir objections, shall pass orders inaccordance with law, within a period of sixweeks from the date on which the Corporationmakes a request for permission to the DistrictMagistrate."19. Based on the above directions, the DistrictCollector has proceeded under the provisions of Section 16 (1) ofthe Indian Telegraph Act to hear the objections of the petitioneralong with the submissions of the Power Grid Corporation. Anenquiry was conducted on 19.02.2007 and the objectors filed theirwritten submissions so also the Corporation.20. The learned District Magistrate, after going throughthe written submissions filed by both the land owner and theCorporation, held as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "T.Narayanan of Gudalur Village,Chengalpattu Taluk submitted that since he isa plot promoter and promoting House sites at79 Gudalur Village and spent very large amountfor developing the lands as House sites, andthat purchasers are from middle class and ifthe power line towers are erected in hisapproved layout, it will severely affect thepurchasers and the petitioner himself. Hecontinued that because the necessary groundclearance for the power line is said to be 40feet on both the sides of the line, totally700 x 33 metres of land will be rendered asuseless and submitted that there are otherporamboke lands so that, the said power linesmay be diverted through that land.For this, M/s.Power Grid Corporation ofIndia Ltd. contended that during their surveythere was no marked layout in that stretch andonly vacant lands were there. Since they areempowered to carry out the powers of theTelegraph authority by Indian Electricity Act2003 and Indian Telegraph Act 1885, to enterupon any immovable properties for erecting thetowers. In this particular case foundationsfor location A.P.32,34/1,35/0,35/1,35/2 haveall been cast and the location 34/0 which isproposed at the petitioner's land (i.e.) theAnnai Nagar, that too in the park area of thatlayout, which was existing at the time of thepetitioner's survey. The petitioner submittedthat no deviation of the alignment is possibleas it would involve crossing the forest andalso alignment will be changed minimum by 90degrees which is technically not feasible.On hearing both sides, it is feltthat the objections raised are purely based onthe commercial interests of the objector andconsidering the fact as submitted by thepetitioner concern that the said tower wouldbe erected on the proposed park area which isof no commercial value in view of a PlotPromoter, the alignment as suggested by theobjector is not technically feasible, andhence objections of the objector hold nogrounds and hence rejected keeping in mind thefact that the said transmission of electricity https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is an essential service.” The above order of the District Collector is under challenge inthis Writ Petition.21. The main controversy that centres around is, whetherthe the District Collector has considered the objections in thelight of the directions of this Court and also in the manner knownto law ?22. This Court is not an expert body to go into thefeasibility or non-feasibility of the transmission lines to beerected and the factual matrix controverted to by the parties inmaking alignment of route of transmission lines and also toconsider the alternate alignment in the light of the objections ofthe petitioner. This Court is duty bound to examine whether theorder passed by the District Collector is in conformity with thelaw laid down; the procedure adopted by the authorities; themanner in which the enquiry was conducted and also whether thedecision taken by the Collector is in accordance with law. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner hascontended that the District Magistrate has not taken into accountthe objections made by the local authority and without theirpermission, the transmission line cannot be allowed to passthrough the layout, meant for park area.24. It is seen from the records that the proceedingswere initiated long back and the petitioner has come before thisCourt by filing Writ petition in December,2006. Considering theoverall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court passed anorder on 18.01.2007 and pursuant to the direction made in the saidorder, the District Collector has passed a reasoned order, dated23.05.2007, after bestowing his attention to the objections raisedby the petitioner, including the park area in the layout. 25. What is now contended by the petitioner is that anobjection was made by the Executive Officer of Maraimalai NagarMunicipality, Kancheepuram District on 09.07.2007 and the same wasnot taken into account by the District Collector.26. As already stated, the District Collector has passedthe impugned proceedings on 23.05.2007, after a thorough analysisof the objections and the counter objections made by the parties.But, the objection filed by the Maraimalai Nagar Municipality wason 09.07.2007, which was much later to the passing of theimpugned proceedings. Further, pursuant to the direction given bythis Court, the District Collector called upon the parties to filetheir objections and immediately on receipt of the objections andhearing them, passed a reasoned order, which cannot be interfered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that theobjection raised by the Municipality was not considered by theDistrict Collector cannot be sustained. 27. It is well settled in Daulat Singh Surana's case,referred to above, that public interest is always superior to theinterest of an individual. In addition, when the Corporationexercises powers under Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Actread with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, they are notacquiring the land, but they are only making use of the land forthe purpose of laying electric lines, for which compensation canbe awarded for the damages caused. Moreover, the project is a timebound one, which has already been delayed by now, and any furtherdelay would render the project in vain and more cost effective.28. Therefore, viewed at from any angle, the petitioner hasnot made out any case to interfere with the order passed by theDistrict Collector. As such, this Writ Petition is dismissed.29. However, as the learned Senior Counsel for the petitionerhas contended that the petitioner has a right to get compensationfor the loss he has suffered, the Corporation is directed, that onreceipt of application from the petitioner for payment ofcompensation, to fix the amount of compensation in accordance withlaw, on the basis of the market value prevalent on the date oferection of poles and pay the same to him, if he is entitled toit, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.30. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 isalso dismissed.dixitSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.To1.The District Executive Magistrate-cum- District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, 69, State Bank Colony, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.1 cc to M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate, SR.19211 cc to M/s.Aiyar & Dolia, Advocate, SR.19371mdr (co)dv/15.4. W.P.No.21533 OF 2007