Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 948 (MAD)

A. Murugesan v. District Collector, Tirunelveli

2015-02-17

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from disturbing the petitioner's possession of his property situated at Survey Nos.288/4 (Resurvey Nos.288/4A, 288/4B, 288/4C and 288/4D), 290/3 (Resurvey Nos.290/3A and 290/3B), 290/5, 291 (Resurvey Nos.291/1A and 291/1B) and Survey No.291/3, Veerasigamani Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District, for the purpose of erecting poles and having en-route for Windmill Companies to reach the Sub-station. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property in Survey Nos.288/4 (Resurvey Nos.288/4A, 288/4B, 288/4C and 288/4D), 290/3 (Resurvey Nos.290/3A and 290/3B), 290/5, 291 (Resurvey Nos.291/1A and 291/1B) and Survey No.291/3, Veerasigamani Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The said property is an agricultural property and the petitioner is cultivating the same depending upon the Monsoon season. Except the agricultural work, the petitioner does not have any other source of income. According to the petitioner, several Companies are erecting Windmills near the petitioner's property and the power generated through the Windmill will be supplied to the Electricity Board, who in turn will either used to adjust or pay the necessary amount to the concerned Windmill Company. The petitioner came to understand that as per the agreement entered between the Windmill Company as well as the fourth respondent, one of the conditions was that it is the duty of the Windmill Company to get their line of supply of the electricity generators to the Sub-station of Electricity Board at their own risk and cost. In the circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 are pressurising the petitioner to give consent for erecting poles for transmission of power to the Sub-station. The petitioner refused to give consent. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 threatened the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the first respondent on 20.09.2010. The first respondent did not pass any order on the representation of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief state supra. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The petitioner has objected for erection of poles for transmission of electricity from the Windmill to the Sub-Station. Respondents 2 and 3 are pressurising the petitioner to give consent for erection of poles by threatening him. Hence, the petitioner has given a representation, on 20.09.2010 to the first respondent. 5. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The petitioner has objected for erection of poles for transmission of electricity from the Windmill to the Sub-Station. Respondents 2 and 3 are pressurising the petitioner to give consent for erection of poles by threatening him. Hence, the petitioner has given a representation, on 20.09.2010 to the first respondent. 5. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to send a copy of the representation to the first respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within six weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.