Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4328 (MAD)

D. Senthilkumar v. State of Tamil Nadu

2017-12-28

ABDUL QUDDHOSE

body2017
ORDER : 1. The present writ petitions have been filed to direct the respondents not to erect tower and transmission line in the petitioners patta land situated at Viralipatti Village, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District on the basis of the representation of the petitioners dated 15.12.2017. 2. Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1, 3 and 4, Mr. K. Sekar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent and Mr. E.P. Venkateshwar, learned counsel for Mr. S.M.S. Johnny Basha takes notice for the respondents 5 and 6. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of 5.47 and 6.22 acres of agricultural lands with 150 and 48 coconut trees on it in Survey Nos.957/1, 957/2B, 1005/2B & 1005/5C and 998, 999/2, 997/1, 997/2, 1000/2B and 1001/4A, respectively situated at Viralipatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District. 4. According to the petitioners, the second respondent which is a Central Government undertaking is laying High Tension Transmission Power Lines over the petitioners property. By laying the lines, according to the petitioners, the coconut trees in the property will have to be uprooted which will cause heavy loss and hardship to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners had given a representation to all the respondents on 15.12.2017 requesting the respondents that without paying adequate compensation, the respondents should not lay the High Tension Transmission Power Lines over their agricultural property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite receipt of the said representation, no reply was sent by the respondents. He would further submit that no show cause notice has been received by the petitioners till date. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which reads as follows: “10. He would further submit that no show cause notice has been received by the petitioners till date. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which reads as follows: “10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts.-The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along, or across, and posts in or upon any immovable property: Provided that-(a) the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph established or maintained by the [Central Government], or to be so established or maintained; (b) the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right other than that of user only in the property under, over, along, across in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph line or post; and (c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and (d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.” 6. According to the petitioners, the respondents have not adhered to the principles of natural justice by issuing prior show cause notice before laying the High Tension Transmission Power Lines over the property of the petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the High Tension Transmission Power Lines have to be laid over the property belonging to the petitioners as well as adjoining lands for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Solar Power Project which is a venture of the Central Government. Under the said project, power is generated by the second respondent and given to the fifth and sixth respondents. 8. Admittedly, there is no written reply given by the respondents to the representation dated 15.12.2017 given by the petitioners. Under the said project, power is generated by the second respondent and given to the fifth and sixth respondents. 8. Admittedly, there is no written reply given by the respondents to the representation dated 15.12.2017 given by the petitioners. Even though, as seen from the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, there is no necessity to give prior notice before laying High Tension Transmission Power Lines over the property of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents should have given a written reply to the representation dated 15.12.2017 sent by the petitioners. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the District Collector, Dindigul District, the third respondent herein, who is the deciding authority shall dispose of the representation of the petitioners, dated 15.12.2017 within a period of one week from today by giving ample opportunity to the petitioners by way of submission of documents in support of their stand and also giving them a personal hearing and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law. Till the disposal of the representation given by the petitioners dated 15.12.2017, the respondents shall not lay the High Tension Transmission Power Lines over the property of the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD)Nos.20325 and 20326 of 2017 are closed.