Allowed

Mr. N. Perumalsamy v. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Madras HC2 Sept 2020WP(MD)/6524/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking removal of high tension electricity lines drawn over the petitioner's private land without consent. It held that without express permission, the Board cannot draw lines and directed an amicable resolution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to remove lines was allowed but parties directed to resolve matter amicably; lines need not necessarily be shifted if resolved.

Mr. N. Perumalsamy Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.09.2020

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5863 of 2020

N.Perumalsamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶8

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution

¶9

Corporation (Distribution),

¶10

Alangulam, Rajapalayam Division, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

2.The Assistant Engineer,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Distribution), Alangulam, Rajapalayam Division, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

3.Srinivasan ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the high tension electricity line which passes over through the petitioner's land located in S.No.342/7 in Arunachalapuram Village, Vembakottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.RJ.Karthick

¶16

For R1& R2 : Ms.M.Parameswari

¶17

for Mr.S.M.S.Johny Basha Standing Counsel

¶18

For R3 : Mr.Ramasamy

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for TANGEDCO and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶21

2.The third respondent applied to the respondents 1 and 2 for providing him with service connection. The request of the third respondent was accepted by TANGEDCO and he was provided with service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

1/8

¶23

2 W.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2020

¶24

connection. While doing so, the respondents 1 and 2 have drawn high tension electricity lines over the land belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.342/7 in Arunachalapuram Village, Vembakkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District. That the overhead lines have been drawn over the petitioner's land is not in doubt.

¶25

3.The learned Standing Counsel would claim that the lines run only over the corner portion of the petitioner's land and that, it does not really affect him.

¶26

4.The petitioner's counsel draws my attention to Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. The said Rule reads as follows:-

¶27

“80.Clearance from buildings of high and extra-high voltage lines:-

¶28

(1) Where a high or extra-high voltage overhead line passes above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, or not less than-

¶29

(a) for high voltage lines upto and including 33,000 volts 3.7 metres.

¶30

(b) for extra-high voltage lines 3.7 metres plus 0.30 metre for every additional 33,000 volts or part thereof.

¶31

(2) The horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure, be not less than-

¶32

(a) for high voltage lines upto and including 11,000 volts 1.2 metres.

¶33

(b) for high voltage lines above 11,000 volts and upto and including 33,000 volts 2.0 metre

¶34

(c) for extra-high voltage lines 2.0 metres plus 0.3 metre for every additional 33,000 volts for part thereof. [Explanation-for the purpose of this rule expression “building” shall be deemed to include any structure, whether permanent of temporary]”

¶35

5.Thus on account of the drawing of the lines over the petitioner's land, definitely the rights of the petitioner have been affected. It is not in dispute that the provision for electricity connection in this case is not for any public purpose. It is only for the purpose of granting facility in favour of the third respondent. Therefore, in such a case, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have obtained the consent of the writ petitioner. Without getting the petitioner's consent, the respondents 1 and 2 could not have drawn the line over his lands. In fact, this issue is no

¶36

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

¶37

2/8

¶38

3 W.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2020

¶39

longer res integra . The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in the decision reported in 2011 3 MLJ 625

¶40

(The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli and another Vs. M.Sengu Vijay) , had held as follows:-

¶41

“20.On a consideration of the relevant legal provisions and on hearing counsel for the parties, the legal position that emerges can be summoned up as follows:

¶42

(I) In case the Board fixes and installs electric poles and/or other appliances on a private piece of land or takes on overhead line passing through a private piece of land without the express permission or consent of the land owner and in exercise of the powers conferred by part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, the question of removal or alteration of the line, pole, other appliances etc. will be governed strictly by the provisions of Sec.17 of the Indian Telegraph Act and in those cases, the provisions of Rule 82 of the Indian Electricity Rules will have no application.

¶43

(II) The provision of Rule 82 shall apply to cases where the Board fixes and installs electricity lines/poles or other appliances on a private piece of land or carries an overhead line through a private piece of land on the invitation of the land owner or with his express permission or consent.”

¶44

6.The Standing Counsel places reliances on Regulation 29(6) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. The said regulation reads as under:-

¶45

“29(6).The Consumer shall permit the licensee to install all requisite equipments such as transformers, switchgears, meters, etc., and to lay necessary cables or overhead lines and to provide connections thereto on the consumer's premises and shall also permit the licensee to extend supply to other consumers through the cables, lines and equipments installed in the consumer's premises, provided that supply to the consumer in the opinion of the Engineer is not thereby unduly affected.”

¶46

7.According to the learned standing counsel, this regulation enables the board to draw overhead lines over the petitioner's land even without his consent.

¶47

8.I am afraid that I cannot accept this submission. The said regulation only states that the Board can only extend supply from the petitioner's premises and it does not authorise the Board to draw overhead lines over the petitioner's land without his consent.

¶48

9.The petitioner's counsel states that from the very beginning, he had been strongly opposing the move of the respondents 1 and 2 to draw the overhead lines. Since the petitioner had made out a clear case that his rights have been infringed, I have no other option to allow the writ petition as prayed for. The Writ Petition stands allowed. However, it is open to the third https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

3/8

¶50

4 W.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2020

¶51

respondent herein to resolve the matter amicably with the petitioner herein. The second respondent can call both the petitioner and the third respondent to appear before him and resolve the issue peacefully. The third respondent can even pay compensation for the injury suffered by the petitioner. If the parties amicably resolve the issues, the same can be reduced into writing and in that event, the respondents 1 and 2 need not really shift the lines already drawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

// True Copy //

¶53

rmi

¶54

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶55

¶56

1.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Distribution), Alangulam, Rajapalayam Division, Virudhunagar District.

¶57

2.The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (Distribution), Alangulam, Rajapalayam Division, Virudhunagar District.

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.6524 of 2020 02.09.2020 VB (09.09.2020) 4P 3C

¶59

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

¶60

4/8

Mr. N. Perumalsamy v. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. N. Perumalsamy v. The Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Jegan Vs The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies

K. Balamurugan Vs the District Environment Engineer

Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. Vs the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board(Twad)

Sivagangai Municipality Vs Joint Commissioner

S.Muneeswaran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Agrini Enclave Houses and Vs the Commissioner