Disposed

S.Laksmana Perumal v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Apr 2021WA(MD)/382/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court directed the District Collector to investigate the appellant's claim of crop destruction and loss due to erecting electricity poles on his agricultural land by a private entity and determine if compensation should be paid.

What did the court decide?

A period of four months granted for the District Collector to complete an enquiry into the alleged crop destruction and determine adequate compensation payable by the private respondents.

S.Laksmana Perumal Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.04.2021

¶4

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶5

W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020 S.Lakshmana Peruml ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Tuticorin – 628 101, Tuticorin District. 2.The Tahsildar, Kayathar Taluk, Tuticorin District – 628 952. 3.The Chief Engineer, Non Conventional Energy Sources (NCES), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. 4.M/s.Vestas Wind Technology India Private Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai – 119. ... Respondents 1 to 4/ Respondents 1 to 4 5.M/s.Vivid Solaire Energy Private Limited, Rep. by its Land and Permitting Manager, Raja Parmar, 1^st Floor, Orchid Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector – 53, Gurugram – 122 002, Haryana. ... 5^th Respondent (R5 impleaded vide order of Court dated 29.04.2021 made in C.M.P. (MD) No.358 of 2021 by TSSJ & SAIJ)

¶6

PRAYER: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order dated 14.02.2020, passed in W.P(MD).No.1060 of 2020.

¶7

1/4

¶8

W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020

¶9

Prayer in WP(MD). 1060/ 2020 :

¶10

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the unlawful of erection 20 electricity transmission poles in the petitioners agricultural land in S.No.158/2, 166/4, 166/5, 285/5, 285/6E, 154/4, 289, 290/8 total in 3.73 Hectare of the petitioner's own land in Kuthiraikulam, Silankulam, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District-628 718

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.K.Chinraj

¶12

For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : Mrs.S.Srimathy For Respondent No.5 : Mr.V.Saravanan

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J .] This Writ appeal filed is directed against the order, dated 14.02.2020, passed in W.P(MD).No.1060 of 2020.

¶15

2.The said Writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to remove the unlawful erection of 20 electricity transmission poles in the petitioner's agricultrual land in S.Nos.158/2, 166/4, 166/5, 285/5, 285/6E, 154/4, 289, 290/8 total extent in 3.73 hectare of the petitioner's own land in Kuthiraikulam, Silankulam, Kayathar Taluk, Tuticorin District. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it is a dispute between the appellant and the fourth respondent, which is a private entity.

¶16

3.The appellant is before us contending that the entire standing crop was destroyed to a total extent of 9.17 hectare and under similar circumstances, in a case in W.P.(MD) No.960 of 2020, compensation was paid to the land owner.

¶17

4.Admittedly, the appellant did not approach the District Collector while the work was in progress stating that he has objected to the entry of the fourth respondent into the land in question. If such objection was raised, probably, the third and fourth respondents would have approached the District Collector for entering into the field. As of now, the pole has been erected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

2/4

¶19

W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020

¶20

and the energy is being wheeled out through the lines across the poles. Therefore, the question of removing the poles cannot be considered.

¶21

5.We have heard Mr.K.Chinraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned counsel for the third respondent and Mr.V.Saravanan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, who have appointed the fourth respondent as a sub-contractor.

¶22

6.Considering the fact that the appellant is an agriculturists, we are inclined to issue certain direction so that the District Collector, Tuticorin District can look into the matter and a reasonable relief can be granted to the appellant.

¶23

7.Accordingly, while confirming the findings of the learned Writ Court, we permit the petitioner to submit a detailed representation along with a copy of order and a fair assessment of the alleged loss sustained by the appellant with a request to pay adequate compensation from respondent Nos.4 and 5. If such representation is given, the District Collector shall cause enquiry to be done either by himself or any other senior officer after notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 and based on the enquiry a reasonble solution be arrived at by the authorities. This direction be complied with within four months from such representation is filed.

¶24

8.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

3/4

¶31

W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tuticorin – 628 101, Tuticorin District. 2.The Tahsildar, Kayathar Taluk, Tuticorin District – 628 952. 3.The Chief Engineer, Non Conventional Energy Sources (NCES), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. +1 CC to MR.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-18100[F] dated 30/04/2021 ) +1 CC to SPL GP ( SR-18280[F] dated 30/04/2021 )

¶34

W.A.(MD) No.382 of 2020 29.04.2021

¶35

KM(31.05.2021) 4P 6C

¶36

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

¶37

4/4

S.Laksmana Perumal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Laksmana Perumal 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

E.Senthil Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

The Government of India, Vs Sikkandar. P

Marimuthu.G Vs the District Collector

C.Palaniyammal Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ganesan Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.V.V. and Sons Ebible Oils Ltd., Vs the State Tax OFFICER-1