Dismissed

K. Chokkar v. the Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC20 Nov 2024WP(MD)/17075/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking a stay on the erection of new high tension electric towers. While the wire passes through petitioner's land, the tower foundation was laid on adjacent barren land years ago to replace an older one. The Court held the prayer cannot be entertained as the structure is already being built.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

K. Chokkar Vs the Superintendent Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

K.Chokkar

...Petitioner

1.The Superintendent Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Division, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Tower Line Section), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Complex, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶13

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction – I, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶14

4.The Power Grid Corporation of India, Represented by its General Manager, 69, State Bank Colony, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

1/8

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶19

Prayer:

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, his agents, servants from erecting any new high tension electric towers, posts, pillars in the land of the petitioner measured to the extent of seven acres and eighty two cents eastern side comprising at R.S.No.32/1, 2, 3 in Patta No.190, in Vedar Puliankulam Village, Madurai South Taluk, now West Taluk, Madurai District inclusive of further construction.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶25

Mr.S.Deenadhayalan , learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶26

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Mandamus,

¶27

forbearing the respondents, his agents, servants from erecting any new high tension electric towers, posts, pillars in the land of the petitioner measured to the extent of 7 acres and 82 cents eastern side comprising at

¶28

R.S.No.32/1, 2, 3 in Patta No.190, in Vedar Puliankulam Village,

¶29

2/8

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶32

Madurai South Taluk, now West Taluk, Madurai District inclusive of further construction.

¶33

3. This Writ Petition has been kept pending from the year 2015 and has been adjourned time and again. By order dated 14.11.2017, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner and the said learned Advocate Commissioner had also filed a report. The relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder:

¶34

“2. I further state that in consonance with the above said order, after giving due notice to the respective parties, I have personally gone to the place of the petitioner R.S.No.32/1, 2, 3 in Patta No.190, in Vedar Puliankulam Village, Madurai South Taluk, now West Taluk, Madurai District, wherein along with the petitioner's counsel as well as the Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents on 19.11.2017 at 09.30 a.m. Since prior notices have already been given to the petitioners and the respondents No.1 to5, they were also being present while at the time of my arrival. Soon after my launch, I have started verification of the spot where the tower is there which was being pointed out by the writ

¶35

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

¶36

3/8

¶37

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶38

petitioner in which the following things were being observed by me.

¶39

a. The property of the writ petitioners are situated at R.S.No. 32/1, 2, 3 in patta no.190, in Vedar Puliankulam village, Madurai South Taluk, now West Taluk, Madurai District. The said property is covered by village panchayat road on two sides and among other two sides one side is covered by barren land which is a patta land and another side is a poramboke land which is in possession of the petitioners and they are using it for cultivation purpose for past several years.

¶40

b. There are three electrical lines (namely A, B & C as mentioned in rough sketch) which are passing through the petitioners land. As enquired from the TNEB officials who were present in the spot during the inspection I came to know that on both the sides of the high tension electric wire upto 6 metres there should not be any trees. Here the dispute arises out of the 'B' line.

¶41

c. In the said 'B' line one of the high tension tower had been erected in adjacent patta barren land before 60 years. Now foundation has

¶42

4/8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶45

been laid to erect a new high tension tower to replace the old one as the old conductor "LINUX" carry only 315-379 amps whereas the new conductor “PANTHER” carry a minimum of 425 amps to a maximum of 526 amps knowing the same the petitioner have moved their representation before the concerned authority and also approached this Hon'ble Court to stop erecting new towers in their land instead erect it in the adjacent poramboke land.

¶46

d. The distance between the newly laid foundations to that of the poramboke land is 48.6 meters. In the said poramboke land already 'C' line is carrying electricity which is 44 meters away from the said patta barren land and it passes through the petitioner's land.”

¶47

4. A reading of the said report, particularly 5(c), would indicate

¶48

that a High Tension tower had been erected adjacent to the patta barren land before 60 years and now that a new foundation had been laid to erect a new high tension tower to replace the old one. The high tension wire alone passes through the patta land of the petitioner, which even

¶49

5/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶52

according to the Advocate Commissioner is a barren land. Since already line had been laid much prior to the filing of the Writ Petition, the prayer sought for by the petitioner could not be entertained, as it is only a mandamus, forbearing the respondents from erecting any new high tension electric wires. It is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that already the line had been laid and energized.

¶53

5. In such view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the petitioner could not be entertained. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

¶54

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶55

20.11.2024

¶56

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶57

6/8

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶60

To:

¶61

1.The Superintendent Engineer, Madurai Electricity Distribution Division, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶62

2.The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, (Tower Line Section), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Complex, K.Pudur, Madurai.

¶63

3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission Line Construction – I, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai – 7.

¶64

4.The General Manager, The Power Grid Corporation of India, 69, State Bank Colony, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

¶65

7/8

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶68

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶69

Nsr

¶70

W.P.(MD).No.17075 of 2015

¶71

20.11.2024

¶72

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

¶73

8/8

K. Chokkar v. the Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Chokkar v. the Superintendent Engineer

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

V.Santhanam, Vs the Collector

K.Suthanthira Bharathi, Vs the Rdo

P.Sivakumar, Ex-Secretary, Vs the Deputy Registrar of

P. Ravichandran, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Muthu Cotton Mills Vs the Tamilnadu Generation and

The Southern India Mills Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and