Dismissed

K.Palanisamy Gounder, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Nov 2019WP/23019/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to stop respondents from erecting electricity poles on his land. The respondents submitted that the poles had already been installed on an alternative route, not touching the petitioner's property. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous, as the prayed relief was no longer tenable.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous since the electricity lines were already erected through an alternative route not affecting the petitioner's land.

K.Palanisamy Gounder, Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.11.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.23019 of 2013

¶6

K.Palanisamy Gounder ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur.

¶9

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Avinashi Road, Tiruppur.

¶10

3.The Superintending Engineer, Jothi Nagar,

¶11

P.N.Road, Tiruppur.

¶12

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, RVE Nagar, 4^th street, Jai Nagar (Post),

¶13

Tiruppur – 641 606.

¶14

5.The Assistant Electrical Engineer,

¶15

33/11, KV Nallur Additional Electricity Board, Kasipalayam Road,

¶16

Jai Nagar (Post), Tiruppur – 641 606.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 2 to 5 from in any manner taking electricity service lines or erecting poles through the lands situate in S.Nos.28/1, 28/1B, 30, 41, 42, 44/1,2,44/3 of Nallur Village in Tiruppur District and to take it through an alternative way.

¶19

For petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth For R1 : Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, Spl.GP For R2 to R5 : Mr.S.K.Raameshwar, Standing Counsel

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 2 to 5 from in any manner taking electricity service lines or erecting poles through the lands situated in S.Nos.28/1, 28/1B, 30, 41, 42, 44/1,2,44/3 of Nallur Village in Tiruppur District and to take it through an alternative way.

¶23

When the matter is taken up, Mr.S.K.Raameshwar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, by filing a reply affidavit, submitted that the erection of poles for giving electricity service connection have been done through the alternative land without touching the petitioner's land. For better understanding, it is relevant to extract below paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the reply affidavit filed by the fifth respondent:-

¶24

“3. I submit that before work on

¶25

laying the poles, objection from the petitioner has been received. Therefore, the possibility lay the poles on an alternative route was investigated. On such investigation it has been ascertained that the poles could be erected on third party roads other than the lands of the petitioner. Accordingly revised proposal has been evolved.

¶26

I submit that as per the revised proposal entire electric line and the poles are drawn outside the property of the petitioner and there is no laying poles on any of the said property of the petitioner. The petitioner is on wrong assumption that the electric poles would pass through his property. But actually the poles would pass through the third party common road and are entirely outside the fencing area of the petitioner's property. The sketch on the revised proposed route is annexed herewith.

¶27

I submit that to execute the LT line extension works were carried on 21.08.2013 and completed on 22.08.2013, which lays through the common path, as per estimate already sanctioned on 20.08.2013. The LT line was not erected through petitioner's patta land Pallakadu, Kasipalayam in Nallur Village.”

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

Since the electricity line has been taken through the alternative land by erecting poles without touching the petitioner's land covered in S.Nos.28/1, 28/1B, 30, 41, 42, 44/1,2,44/3 and that the extension works relating to the Low Tension (LT) line were also completed on 22.08.2013 as per the estimate already sanctioned on 20.08.2013, the prayer in the writ petition seeking to forbear the respondents 2 to 5 from erecting the poles or taking electricity line through the petitioner's line has become infructuous and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No Costs.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

1.The District Collector, Tiruppur.

¶35

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Avinashi Road, Tiruppur.

¶36

3.The Superintending Engineer, Jothi Nagar, P.N.Road, Tiruppur.

¶37

4.The Assistant Executive Engineer, RVE Nagar, 4^th street, Jai Nagar (Post), Tiruppur – 641 606.

¶38

5.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, 33/11, KV Nallur Additional Electricity Board, Kasipalayam Road, Jai Nagar (Post), Tiruppur – 641 606.

¶39

+1cc to M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate Sr.94005 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.93742

¶40

W.P.No.23019 of 2013

¶41

vd[co] srg 07/01/2020

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Palanisamy Gounder, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palanisamy Gounder, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Palanivel Vs Assistant Engineer O & M

Krishna Modern Rice Mill Vs Muthukrishnan

Salem Constructions, Vs The commissioner

M/S. Cauvery Power Generation Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

K.Sundari, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Sri Venkateswara Vidyalaya Vs the Member Secretary