Madras High Court
K.Kamatchi vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13 September, 2022
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
WP.No.17186 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
WP.No.17186 of 2015
K.Kamatchi ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
O/o.The Superintendent Engineer,
General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB,
A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
O/o.The Superintendent Engineer,
General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB,
A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
3. The Executive Engineer,
O/o.The Executive Engineer,
General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB,
A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
O/o.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB,
A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
5. The Assistant Engineer,
O/o.The Assistant Engineer,
General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB,
A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.17186 of 2015
6. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kanchipuram. ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to pay
extemporary damages for having demolished the superstructure in the land
in Survey No.35/5, 35/6 and 35/7 situated at Santhavelu Village,
Sunguvarchatiram Post, Sriperumpudur Taluk – 602 106 in Patta No.143
demolished on 15.03.2014 without assessing compensation as required
under law and may asses damages and compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.Suresh Sakthi Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Madusudanan – R1 to R5
Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, AGP – R6
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the the respondents 1 to 6 to pay the damages for having demolished the superstructure in the land of the petitioner on 15.03.2014 without assessing compensation as required under law and may asses damages and compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that high tension electric wire 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17186 of 2015 was sought to be erected in his land. As against which, he has already filed a suit in O.S.No.437 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur on 05.10.2009. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the above suit, the Tamilnadu Electricity Board took a stand that they will not erect the tower in the land belonging to the petitioner. The fourth and the fifth respondents have also given an undertaking that the High Tension wire would be placed at an height of 53 feet from the ground level without causing any damage to the superstructure. In view of the above undertaking, the petitioner had applied for planning permission for ground and first floor and construction has also been made. After construction of the above building, now the first respondent has erected the tower on the same line and the building put up by the petitioner was demolished. Hence, the petitioner has given a representation for compensation and the same has not been considered.
3. Taking note of filing of the suit in O.S.No.437 of 2009 by the petitioner and the undertaking given by the respondent, namely Tamilnadu Electricity Board that they will not erect High Tension line in the land belonging to the petitioner and subsequent to the same, planning 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17186 of 2015 permission has been obtained by the petitioner and he had made construction, the District Collector is directed to pass Order on merits on the representation of the petitioner taking note of over all situation. This Court is also of the view that once electric line is erected in land, the utility and the value of the land will be totally diminished and one cannot be deprived of the property which is a constitutional right and adequate compensation has to be paid. This principle has to be kept in mind while deciding the compensation and such decision shall be taken after giving appropriate opportunity to all the parties concerned.
4. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
13.09.2022 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking vrc 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17186 of 2015 To,
1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, O/o.The Superintendent Engineer, General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB, A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
2. The Superintendent Engineer, O/o.The Superintendent Engineer, General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB, A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
3. The Executive Engineer, O/o.The Executive Engineer, General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB, A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer, O/o.The Assistant Executive Engineer, General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB, A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
5. The Assistant Engineer, O/o.The Assistant Engineer, General Construction, Circle 1 & II, TNEB, A10, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Chennai – 32.
6. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kanchipuram.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.17186 of 2015 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc WP.No.17186 of 2015 13.09.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis