Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1618 (MAD)

K. Valli Ammal v. Chief Engineer, Transmission

2014-06-23

C.S.KARNAN

body2014
Judgment : 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner is the title owner of the lands comprised in Survey Nos.148/1 and 148/3 in Seruvangi Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, having extent of 1.08 acres and 0.75 acres respectively. The petitioner submits that the above said property was purchased by her from one L.J.Sekar, S/o.L.Jeyachandran vide sale deed dated 28.11.2007 executed in her favour by paying valid sale consideration. The said property was a self acquired property of her vendors L.J.Sekar, S/o.L.Jeyachandran, who came into the ownership of the said property by way of a sale deed dated 12.05.1999 registered in his favour at the Sub-Registrar Office, Gudiyatham bearing registration No.2310 of 1999 book No.1, page No's 203-206 and another property was registered on 13.07.2006 registered at the same Sub Registrar Office, Gudiyatham bearing registration No.3910 of 2006. From the date of the purchase of the above property in her name on 28.11.2007, she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner further submits that the patta in respect of Survey No.148/1 has been issued in her name bearing patta No.176 by the Thasildar, Gudiyatham. The patta for the property comprised in survey No.148/3 is also issued in her name by the Thasildar, Gudiyatham bearing patta No.177. Both the pattas were issued in her name on 22.01.2008 by the Thasildar, Gudiyatham. The above documents clearly establish her ownership as well as her possession of the above said property. 2. The petitioner further submits that she also paid revenue tax to the revenue authorities regularly for the above mentioned properties and she is having the receipt issued for the payment of revenue tax issued in her name for the lands comprised in patta Nos.176 and 177. Further, the chitta and adangal for the lands comprised in Survey No.148/3 and 148/1 was also issued in her name on 09.10.2010. Hence, she is having all the documents to establish her ownership of title in respect of the above mentioned property. The patta, chitta, adangal and revenue receipt in respect of the said property were issued in her name which clearly establishes her possession over the property mentioned above. The petitioner further submits that the respondents suddenly, without any notice or information to her, entered into the above mentioned lands on 10.03.2004 which is in her enjoyment and possession. The patta, chitta, adangal and revenue receipt in respect of the said property were issued in her name which clearly establishes her possession over the property mentioned above. The petitioner further submits that the respondents suddenly, without any notice or information to her, entered into the above mentioned lands on 10.03.2004 which is in her enjoyment and possession. A group of people numbering around 10 entered into her property on that day against her objection. Those persons attempted to take some measurements in her lands and started digging the land. This act on their part shocked and surprised her. The petitioner along with her family members objected those persons and asked them to stop doing anything in her lands without her permission and she also enquired about the identify of the persons and asked them under what authority they entered into her lands and started digging the lands. The petitioner further submits that those persons informed that they are coming from the respondents office to lay over -head electricity lines, which is a high tension line. She informed that they were not legally entitled to entering to her property without putting her on notice and without giving her an opportunity to file her objections against their act of laying over head lines in the property as the property belongs to her. She asked them not to do anything in the property before considering her objection to be filed against their act of laying over - head lines in her property. 3. The petitioner further submits that the said persons informed that they are acting on the dictates of the respondents herein and if she wants them not to do anything in her lands, she may approach the respondents and inform them for getting a direction to stop them for laying the over head lines. She further submits that the provision of Indian Electricity Act clearly stipulates that the respondents, before entering into any land for the purpose of laying over head lines shall issue notice to the owner and occupier of the said land and they have to give an opportunity to the land owner for filing objection, and after that only they are entitled to proceed further after considering the objection in proper perspective. The petitioner further submits that the said group of 10 persons stopped their work in her lands on 12.03.2014 and insisted her to approach the appropriate authority for getting a direction to them. They have given her only four days time for approaching the competent authority or Court for getting an order against them restraining them from proceeding further. The said 10 persons whose identify, she is not aware of, had given her a little breathing time and informed her that she has to obtain a Court order or administrative order for restraining them from proceeding further. She would like to point out at this juncture that the said 10 persons claiming authority given by the respondents are ready to dig the land for the purpose of laying the over-head lines unless this Court pass an interim order restraining them from doing so. 4. The petitioner further submits that since the said group of 10 persons entered into her property without any notice, she has got no time to make her representation. But in fact, she has sent a letter to the second respondent to follow due process of law before entering into her property for laying over-head lines. She was constrained to file this writ petition because those persons forcibly entered into her lands and are making developments in the lands causing injury to her right of ownership and possession and enjoyment of these lands. 5. The fourth respondent has filed a counter statement stating that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 164 and Section 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003, the Board shall have the powers of the Telegraphic Authority under the Telegraphic Act, 1885 (Central Act XIII of 1885) with regard to laying of the telegraphic lines and erecting poles. As such the Board, the transmission licensee, is not bound to give prior notices to the land owners before drawing overhead lines or erecting towers for transmission of electricity. He further submits that the Scheme was approved vide B.P.No.8, dated 04.02.2013 and published in both Tamil and English in Indian Express and Dinamani dated 27.03.2013 for wide publicity. He further submits that before the scheme is sanctioned by the Full Board, TANTRANSCO (TNEB) have scrutinized the data collected during the survey regarding environmental considerations, road crossing and river crossing and the inhabitants. He further submits that before the scheme is sanctioned by the Full Board, TANTRANSCO (TNEB) have scrutinized the data collected during the survey regarding environmental considerations, road crossing and river crossing and the inhabitants. Further, while conducting the surveys mentioned above, special cares were taken to avoid routing the transmission lines through reserve or protected forests, villages, bulk storage oil tank, oil pipeline, airports, cluster of hamlets to avoid or to minimize the damages. 6. The fourth respondent further submits that any notice need not be given to land owner before laying extra high tension (EHT) line on their land. The line could not be deviated due to technical feasibility, the work is carried out as per the approved route, and as per the Rules. He further submits that the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) is now facing much more problems to provide the electricity power supply to the public due to the scarcity of electric power and the demand raising day to day development activities. Considering the present scarcity of Electric Power Supply and future development activities, the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) has planned to establish the new 400 KV sub stations along with the associated lines. Out of which, one of the 400 KV EHT line of Dharmapuri 400 KV sub station to Thiruvalam 400 KV sub station is being erected by the TANTRANSCO (TNEB). 7. The fourth respondent further submits that the new 400 KV line of Dharmapuri to Thiruvalam 400 KV sub station is very much essential to transmit the electric power from Northern states of India to Tamilnadu and also wind power from Southern region of Tamilnadu. So, this line is very much essentially required to facilitate the uninterrupted electric power supply to the public. He further submits that the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) has proposed to erect the EHT lines most probable in agricultural lands because the TANTRANSCO (TNEB) is not acquiring any lands but for making only use of it for laying tower foundation and drawing the line over the lands as per Section 164 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Act 2003, the exercise of power of Telegraph authority in certain cases. He further submits that the compensation will be paid for actual damages caused during the execution of work according to the provision of Act for crops and trees whenever trees are required to be cut and removed from the line to have the adequate vertical and horizontal clearance for having safety of livelihood. No compensation for the land is offered by the TANTRANSCO. 8. The fourth respondent further submits that the agriculturists can cultivate any crops like paddy, sugarcane, turmeric, banana, high breed variety of mango trees etc., so there is no restriction for cultivation of crops and also the compensation will be paid when the live trees are removed at the time of execution. He further submits that recently there is a judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.No.18367 of 2009, dated 29.10.2009, wherein, it is clearly ordered vide para 13 as follows:- "a. No notice is necessary to the land owner before laying High Tension Line in their land. b. The permission of the land owner for laying High Tension wire over the above land of the petitioner is not necessary under Section 10 and Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. c. Such permission is required only in the case of the land owned by the local authority." The fourth respondent further submits that above work was commenced on 20.11.2013 and the same is under progress. As on date about 70% works have been completed and the TANTRANSCO has invested crores of rupees in this project. 9. The highly competent counsel, Mr.T.P.Prabakaran appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having extent of 1.08 acres and 0.75 acres respectively in Survey Nos.148/1 and 148/3 and she is doing cultivation over the said lands. She depends upon her income derived from the lands for her livelihood. She is a small agricultural land owner and as the respondents have erected over-head high tension lines, over her land, she is unable to do cultivation of her land in a proper manner. Further, the activities of the respondents in erecting over-head high tension lines on the land amounts to trespass and is an illegal act and their occupation is an unlawful one even though it is for public purpose. 10. Further, the activities of the respondents in erecting over-head high tension lines on the land amounts to trespass and is an illegal act and their occupation is an unlawful one even though it is for public purpose. 10. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that without prior notice to the land owner and without conducting an enquiry, the respondents have forcibly acquired the petitioner's property for erecting over-head high tension lines over the said property and this act of theirs are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The respondents herein are State Government concerns and they are operating their big machinery against the poor agriculturist for acquiring her land unlawfully. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to direct the respondents to remove the over-head high tension lines from her lands and prevent them from doing any other activities. 11. The very competent Additional Advocate General Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, submits that the respondents had erected over-head high tension lines on the petitioner's land, for the welfare of the general public in large. As per the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 under Section 10, the respondents have ample power to enter into the immovable property for erecting over-head high tension lines, for which, prior notice is absolutely not necessary. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, she is entitled to receive an adequate compensation from the respondents after making proper representations. Further, the erection work being undertaken in the petitioner's lands is at an incomplete stage and therefore, the respondents shall be permitted to carry out the unfinished work for the welfare of the general public, which is absolutely necessary. Hence, the highly Competent Additional Advocate General, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition as the petitioner's fundamental and personal rights had not been affected. Further, the question of trespass or illegal occupation does not arise in the instant case, since the over-head high tension lines which is being erected is to serve the public. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the affidavit of the petitioner and on scrutiny of typed-set of papers, this Court is of the view that the property on which the over-head high tension lines is being erected belongs to the petitioner. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the affidavit of the petitioner and on scrutiny of typed-set of papers, this Court is of the view that the property on which the over-head high tension lines is being erected belongs to the petitioner. Further, the respondents have been erecting the over-head high tension lines to and in the interest of the general public. However, the aggrieved petitioner is entitled to receive adequate compensation from the respondents after making necessary application. Hence, this Court directs the petitioner to file an application before the respondents for compensation and after receipt of the said application for compensation, the respondents shall assess the compensation after taking into consideration the damage caused to the crops and the extent of loss caused due to use of land for erection of the said over-head high tension lines. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in completion of their project over the said land. 13. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.