Disposed

Vellaichamy.K v. the Superintendent Engineer (Tneb)

Madras HC29 Jun 2022WP(MD)/562/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a senior citizen, challenged the installation of a transformer and cables on his land without consent. Court distinguished prior precedent under new statutory regime where notice is required but consent is not. Court directed removal without petitioner payment but mandated revised reasonable compensation estimate.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to submit a revised, reasonable estimate for shifting through the Executive Engineer within three weeks for payment by petitioner and removal within eight weeks.

Vellaichamy.K Vs the Superintendent Engineer (Tneb) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

K.Vellaichamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent Engineer (TNEB), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

¶11

Sivaganga Electricity Distribution Circle, Sivagangai District – 630 562.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer (E.E.), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO),

¶13

Karaikudi Division, Sivagangai District – 630 562.

¶14

3.The Assistant Engineer (AE), Town/South/TANGEDCO, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District – 630 562. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to remove the high density dangerous cable wire laid down under the ground level

¶16

of earth of his property and also shifting or relocating the erected electricity

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶20

transformer in the middle of his patta land (Patta No.1187) in Survey No.7/58 to the total extent of 0.02.0 Hectors (2225 sq. ft.) at Ariyakudi Village and Panchayat, Sakkottai Union, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District to some other nearby unobjectionable available vacant government pormboke property based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.03.2020.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶25

2.The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned land. He is a senior citizen. On his land, a huge transformer has been installed even without getting his consent. The petitioner is residing elsewhere and he came to know about the same only much later. He has been knocking the doors of the respondents all these years for shifting the transformer. The respondents stated that if the petitioner would remit a sum of Rs.3,37,310/-, they would shift the distribution transformer. This writ petition has been filed on the footing that since the petitioner's consent was not taken, the transformer and the poles in

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶27

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶28

question will have to be removed even without the petitioner having to make any payment.

¶29

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in CDJ 1999 MHC 282 (S.Kannappan (Died) and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Tiruvottriyur Municipalaity, Madras and Others) . I must straightaway reject the said contention because the said decision was rendered when the new Act was not in force. Under the present statutory regime, while the electricity board authority has to put the land owner on notice, his consent is not required. But the land owner is entitled to demand compensation for the injury and loss suffered by him. I therefore made it clear to the writ petitioner's counsel that the only remedy I can grant is that the petitioner can be permitted to go before the jurisdictional District Collector, who can be mandated to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner.

¶30

4.The petitioner has enclosed the photographs in the typed set of papers. It is seen that a huge transformer has been erected right on the patta land of the petitioner. The conduct of the respondent in locating the pole and running the cable wires right through the middle of the petitioner's land cannot be appreciated. The petitioner is having hardly five cents of land and almost the

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

3/6

¶33

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶34

entire land has been rendered unfit for putting up any construction. When I suggested that proper compensation can be paid to the petitioner herein, the petitioner's counsel stated that he would instead bear the cost of shifting.

¶35

5.The estimate prepared by the respondents appears to be patently unreasonable. Without even putting the petitioner on notice, the transformer in question was installed on the petitioner's land and to call upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,37,310/- appears to be grossly unfair and inequitable. The respondents are therefore directed to prepare a revised estimate. The respondents have to bear in mind that they have used the petitioner's land without paying single paisa towards compensation. The respondents while preparing the fresh estimate will bear this aspect in mind. The second respondent is directed to prepare a revised estimate after taking the approval of the first respondent and serve the same on the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the cost set out in the revised estimate is unreasonable, it is open to the petitioner herein to move this Court again for relief. If the amount indicated in the revised estimate is acceptable to the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay the same and the shifting will be done within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

4/6

¶38

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶39

6.The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.

¶40

29.06.2022

¶41

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶43

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶45

ias

¶46

W.P(MD)No.562 of 2021

¶47

29.06.2022

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

6/6

Vellaichamy.K v. the Superintendent Engineer (Tneb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellaichamy.K v. the Superintendent Engineer (Tneb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anthonyraj.S Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Z.637 Swamimalai Primary Agricultural Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Vs The Secretary to Government

M/s.Bala Vinayaga Blue Metals Vs The District Collector

Badmasaliar Munnetra Sangam Vs the District Collector

Shaji.B.G. Vs the Dist.Collector

Mallapuramm Sandhanatthurai Magalir Nalasangam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu