Allowed

A. Katturaja, v. the Superintendent

Madras HC14 Dec 2023WP(MD)/4876/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the unauthorized erection of electric poles on his agricultural land by a windmill operator. The High Court directed the successor of the windmill operator to remove the poles and overhead lines within eight weeks of the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to M/s. Clarion Windfarms Private Limited to remove erected electric poles and overhead lines within eight weeks.

A. Katturaja, Vs the Superintendent — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

A.Katturaja

... Petitioner

versus

The Superintendent of Engineer/Wind Form TNEB Tirunelveli District.

¶11

The Executive Engineer/Wind Form TNEB Tirunelveli District.

¶12

The Executive Engineer/Wind Form TNEB Kadayanallur Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

The Director/Manager, Vestar RRB – Energy Ltd., No.158A, Railway Road, S.M.Complex 1^st Floor, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Senthamaram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

1/7

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to remove the E.B.Line, which was erected in an unauthorized manner in Survey No.397/1B, without obtaining permission from the petitioner.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Muthuvelan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel For R4 : No appearance For R5 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner, with a grievance that the 4^th respondent, a Windmill Operator, has illegally trespassed into his agricultural land and erected poles without his consent and his vendor, has filed this writ petition.

¶23

This writ petition, which was filed in the year 2015, is taken

¶24

up for hearing only in the year 2023.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶29

without any authority, the 4^th respondent/the Windmill Operator has erected poles in the petitioner's land. Though notice was ordered to the 4^th respondent and its name is also printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the 4^th respondent.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3/TANGEDCO submits that the 4^th respondent has sold the windmill to one M/s.Clarion Windfarms Private Limited in the year 2006 itself. These electric poles and overhead lines across the petitioner's agricultural land were erected well in advance before the petitioner purchased the land. The petitioner, knowing that the electric poles are in the land, has purchased the land, however, he is now raising the issue with the TANGEDCO and the Windmill Operator. He further submits that the TANGEDCO officials have also intimated about the writ petition filed by the petitioner to the successor of the 4^th respondent, namely, M/s.Clarion Windfarms Private Limited and they assure that they will remove the electric poles from the petitioner's

¶31

3/7

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶34

agricultural land. Even after the information provided by TANGEDCO officials, the successor of the 4^th respondent, namely, M/s.Clarion Windfarms Private Limited, has not come forward before this Court to represent their case before this Court.

¶35

This Court, by earlier order dated 06.12.2023 has directed the TANGEDCO, to produce the relevant documents, if any, for the permission, which was provided by the 4^th respondent to erect the poles in the petitioner's agricultural land.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that no such permission was obtained from the competent authority before erecting the poles at the relevant point of time.

¶37

Therefore, it appears that without any permission from the

¶38

competent authority under the Telegraph Act and without informing the

¶39

petitioner, the poles have been erected.

¶40

4/7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶43

Now, it is reported that the successor of the 4th respondent, namely, M/s.Clarion Windfarms Private Limited, is intending to remove the electric poles from the petitioner's land. Though the successor of the 4th respondent is not before this Court, considering the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for TANGEDCO, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the successor of the 4th respondent, namely, M/s.Clarion Windfarms Private Limited, to remove the poles erected in the petitioner's land and overhead lines, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that M/s.Clarion Windfarms Private Limited removes the poles from the petitioner's agricultural land. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

14.12.2023

¶45

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶46

5/7

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶49

¶50

The Superintendent of Engineer/Wind Form TNEB Tirunelveli District.

¶51

The Executive Engineer/Wind Form TNEB Tirunelveli District.

¶52

The Executive Engineer/Wind Form TNEB Kadayanallur Division, Tirunelveli District.

¶53

6/7

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶56

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶57

ogy

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.4876 of 2015

¶59

14.12.2023

¶60

7/7

¶61

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

A. Katturaja, v. the Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Katturaja, v. the Superintendent

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

M/S.Polyspin Ltd., Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Nagarajan Vs Senior Divsional Commercial

K.Meena Vs the Director

P.Thirumoorthy Vs The District Collector

P. Chinnadurai Vs the Branch Manager

Selvam Vs The Commissioner of Custom (Prev)