Remanded

Veluchamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 May 2022WP(MD)/9332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court stayed the erection of electricity poles on the petitioner's land pending payment of determined compensation. Petitioners were granted liberty to appeal the compensation quantum within 30 days after payment under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act without prior exhaustion of appeals.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from erecting poles until payment of Rs.1,48,627/-; liberty granted to appeal compensation within 30 days of payment.

Veluchamy Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.9332 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.05.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.9332 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD) No.6693 of 2022

¶7

Veluchamy ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District,

Thoothukudi.

2.The Tahsildar,

Kayathar Taluk,

Thoothukudi District.

¶14

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶15

Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd,

¶16

(TANTRANSCO),

¶17

Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶18

The Assistant Engineer,

¶19

Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.,

(TANTRANSCO)

Dindigul.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents and their men agents or any person claiming rights under them from erecting or putting up any poles or towers for passing or drawing or transmitting any electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land measuring about 120.97 Cents situated in Survey No.42/1 in Kothali Village, Thoothukudi District, without following due process of law.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.Aayiram.K.Selvakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan

¶25

Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a mandamus restraining the respondents from erecting or putting up any poles or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

1/3

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.9332 of 2022

¶30

towers for passing or drawing or transmitting any electricity cables or wires through the petitioner's land measuring about 120.97 cents situated in Survey No.42/1 in Kothali Village, Thoothukudi District, without following the due process of law.

¶31

Heard Mr.Aayiram.K.Selvakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are now attempting to draw high tension line right in the middle of his property. When the petitioner received notice, he appeared before the District Magistrate and submitted his objection.

¶33

A perusal of the said objection, it is clear that the petitioner has claimed that, because of the impugned exercise, high tension line will pass through the middle of his land and apart from the portion which is affected directly by the drawal of high tension line and other pieces of land also will become unusable and therefore, he is claiming a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation. Thereafter, as per Section 16 (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondents have passed an order thereby determining the total compensation at Rs.1,48,627/-. Under these circumstances, when this Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the writ of mandamus at this stage is maintainable without filing an appeal before the District Court under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the learned counsel relying upon a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1294 of 2017 would submit that the facts of the present case is similar to the facts of the case, whereby this Court had directed the respondents to first determine the compensation and pay the same and thereafter liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply to the District Court and until they pay the compensation as determined by them under Section 16(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885, they were not permitted to erect the poles.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that it will be in the interest of the respondents 3 and 4 to pay the compensation as determined by them and statutorily the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the District Court.

¶35

In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

¶36

(i) It is seen that by the order which does not contain a date, but is produced in Page No.19 of the typed set of papers, the respondents 3 and 4 have determined the compensation at Rs.1,48,627/- as per Section 16 (4) of the Act. The respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore are restrained from entering into the petitioner's land

¶37

2/3

¶38

W.P.(MD).No.9332 of 2022

¶39

and erecting the poles/lines until they pay the sum of Rs.1,48,627/- as determined by them. (ii) As and when they pay the said sum, they will be entitled to erect the poles and draw the lines;

¶40

(iii) If the petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of the compensation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said compensation he will be entitled to file an appeal before the District Judge, under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885;

¶41

(iv) There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-

¶42

Assistant Registrar (A.D.I)

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶45

akv/ebsi

¶46

¶47

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶48

2.The Tahsildar, Kayathar Taluk, Thoothukudi District.

¶49

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

¶50

Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd, (TANTRANSCO), Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

¶51

The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd., (TANTRANSCO) Dindigul.

¶52

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-23499[F] dated 06/05/2022 )

¶53

W.P.(MD).No.9332 of 2022 05.05.2022

¶54

RD(24.05.2022) 3P 6C

¶55

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

¶56

3/3

Veluchamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veluchamy 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

S.Radhakrishnan Vs the Director of School

P.Prabhakaran Vs the Director of Public

Tmt.R.Revathi Vs the Secretary

Marimuthu .S Vs The District Collector

S.S.Ravindran, Vs Sairam

Sekar, Vs Palpandiyan