D. Manoharan & Ors. v. The Chairman, TNEB

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :02.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANW.P.Nos.28299 to 28301 of 2008andM.P.Nos.1, 1 of 2008D.Manoharan ... Petitioner in W.P.28299/08M.Devendran ...Petitioner in W.P.28300/08S.Mohana ...Petitioner in W.P.28301/08 Vs1.The Chairman, TNEB, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.2.The Superintending Engineer, Basinbridge, TNEB, Chennai.3.The Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction, TNEB, Sriperumandur 602 105. ... Respondentsin all W.Ps.Prayer in W.Ps.28299,28300/08:- Writ Petition is filed underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of awrit of mandamus to direct the respondent to remove the HT powerline and pillars, unatuhorizedly errected on the petitioner plotNos.658, 659 in Survey No.183/3 situated at Sri KamatchiammanNagar, V phase, Irunkattukottai, Sriperumandur Taluk, KanchipuramDistrict.Prayer in W.Ps.28301/08:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ ofmandamus to direct the respondent to remove the HT power line laidon the petitioner plot No.656 in Survey No.183/3 situated at SriKamatchiamman Nagar, V phase, Irunkattukottai, Sriperumandur Taluk,Kanchipuram District.For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.VaradarajuluFor Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendiran for TNEB C O M M O N O R D E RThe prayer in all the writ petitions is for issuance of a writof mandamus to direct the respondent to remove the HT power lineand pillars, unatuhorizedly errected on the petitioner plot https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nos.658, 659 and 656 in Survey No.183/3 situated at SriKamatchiamman Nagar, V phase, Irunkattukottai, Sriperumandur Taluk,Kanchipuram District. 2.Since the issue involved and the relief sought for is oneand the same in all the writ petitions, a common order is beingpassed.3.The petitioners were employees of the Metropolitan TransportCorporation, Chennai and they retired from service in November2006 and 2007. While they were in service, they purchased housingplots during 1982 and 1983 and registered at the Sub RegisterOffice, Sriperumandur. The plots are measuring one ground and 901sq. ft. and one ground and 2400 sq.feet with specified boundaries.The petitioners were planning to construct houses thereon. Totheir surprise, they found that the Electricity Board without anynotice to the petitioners erected poles and high power lines intheir lands. When they represented to the concerned Authorities,it was explained to them that it is being done for Sriperumandurconstruction line. Further they have also erected two ironpillars in plot No.58 and another two pillars in plot No.659 in themiddle of the plot to draw the power line. According to thepetitioners, the raising of the pillars on their plots would affectthe construction in their plots. Further, more than 20 feetbreadth and 1 k.m. length vacant land belonged to IrunkattukottaiPanchayat Union is very much available, nearly and withoutconsidering the same, the respondent Board has chosen to erect thepillars and draw lines on the lands of the petitioners therebycausing loss to them. Hence the above writ petitions for the abovesaid prayers.4. This Court on 27.11.2008 while ordering notice to therespondents granted interim order of status quo as on that date andthe said order of status is being continued till date.5. I have heard Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu the learned counsel forthe petitioners and Mr.A.Selvendiran learned counsel for therespondent Board. I have also gone through the documents availableon record.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend thatwithout any notice to the petitioners, who are the owners of theplots, the respondent Board have erected the pillars on thepetitioners' lands and drawn power lines over their lands resultingin the petitioners not being able to put up any constructions atall in their lands. He also drew my attention to the relevantprovisions to show that the respondent Board has to give notice tothe petitioners before drawing any line or erecting pillars.Therefore, according to them, the action of the respondent Board inerecting the pillars and drawing lines are illegal and therefore,they sought for a direction to the respondent to remove the pillarserected and lines drawn unauthorisedly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Per contra Mr.A.Selvendiran learned counsel for therespondent Board would contend that the Electricity Board has powerto lay transmission lines on the lands available. Taking intoconsideration the technical feasibility, the provisions of law andas per the Judgment of this Court it is not necessary to givenotice to the parties. Therefore, the petitioners who claims to bethe owners of the lands were not given prior notice. Further, atthe time of erecting the pillars on the lands, the petitionerscould have objected to the same. Having kept quiet for such a longperiod, the petitioners cannot come at this stage to make theirobjections when the work has been fully completed and the lines areenergised. According to the learned counsel, the Board is doingsuch works for the benefit of the public at large and when that isbeing done, public interest has to prevail upon the privateinterest. He also referred to an unreported judgment of this courtdated 28.01.2008, to reiterate that no notice needs to be given tothe land owners before erecting towers and drawing overhead lineson their lands. 8. While considering the power of the respondent Board, I amof the considered view that though the power of the Board withregard to the erection of towers and drawing of lines on theprivate property is not disputed, the said power has to beexercised carefully so as to cause less inconvenience to theowners. When a person is going to be deprived of the optimum useof the property, the Board should have concern and makearrangements to draw or erect in such a way so as to cause minimuminconvenience to the owners of the lands.9. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, Iam of the view that the learned District Collector cum JudicialMagistrate being the competent authority should consider and passappropriate orders in cases of this nature. 10.Hence, I direct the petitioners to approach the DistrictCollector cum Judicial Magistrate in this regard, who will in turnconsider the issue in detail, after affording opportunity to thepetitioners and the respondents and pass orders on merits and inaccordance with law, within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the order ofstatus quo granted by this Court is to continue.With the above direction, all the writ petitions are disposedof. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vriTo1.The District Collector cum Judicial Magistrate, Kanchipuram District.2.The Chairman, TNEB, 802, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.The Superintending Engineer, Basinbridge, TNEB, Chennai.4.The Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction, TNEB, Sriperumandur 602 105.3 ccs To M/s.A.Selvendran, Advocate, SR.28738, 28739, 287401 cc To Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu, Advocate, SR.28503W.P.Nos.28299 to 28301 of 2008SAI(CO)SRA(04/08/2009)