Madras High Court
T.Bhuvaneswari vs The District Collector-Cum-District ... on 1 April, 2015
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 01.04.2015 Coram :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.A.No.1015 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 T.Bhuvaneswari .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode. 2. The Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, KR Thoppu, Konakkapadi (PO), Karukalwadi Village, Tharamangalam (Via), Omalur Taluk, Salem District, Salem. 3. The Chief Engineer, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited 765 KV DC Line, 17/4 G, Vivekanandar Street, Gandhi Nagar, Naciyanoor Road, Erode. .. Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 29.11.2013 made in W.P.No.18548 of 2013. For Appellant : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.S.Sivasundaram For R-1 : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader For RR-2 and 3 : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia - - - - - Date of Reserving the Judgment : 24.03.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 01.04.2015 ***** J U D G M E N T
G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.No.18548 of 2013, by an order dated 29.11.2013, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the appellant/writ petitioner are as follows:-
(i) The appellant/writ petitioner is the owner of the lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9 measuring an extent of 2.08 acres at Solakalipalayam, Chenna Samudram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District. She has purchased the property under two sale deeds dated 23.01.1982 and 20.06.1988, bearing Registration Nos.41/1982 and 308/1988 respectively, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kodumudi. The lands are used for cultivation and they abut the Karur to Erode State Highways. It is the further case of the appellant that she has three sons and one daughter and therefore, she has decided to construct residential houses for them. Her elder son is engaged in cultivation of 1.60 acres. There are 150 coconut trees and the remaining 40 cents have been earmarked to construct a dwelling house for her sons. It is the case of the appellant that on 20.09.2012, the officials of the second respondent inspected her lands without any intimation. Subsequently, she came to know that the original schedule of transmission lines were not passing through her lands. According to her, due to the objections raised by adjacent landowners, the second respondent has changed the alignment and the present proposal of erecting the tower and passage of HT Electricity Line over the lands are intended by the second respondent.
(ii) It is the further case of the appellant that the total width of her land is 184 feet and the proposed HT Electricity Line would pass through the middle of the land, by which, 70% of the land utility would be lost. According to the appellant, if the same is taken through the eastern side of the land by shifting 80 feets, she will be in a position to minimize the damage caused by transmitting the High Tension Electricity line. Therefore, she sent a representation dated 24.09.2012 to the third respondent / Chief Engineer, for shifting of HT Electricity Lines on the eastern side of the appellant's land. The said representation was not considered and therefore, she has sent another representation dated 08.10.2012 to the first respondent / District Collector-cum-District Magistrate. According to the appellant, in the meantime, the officials of the 2nd and 3rd respondents proceeded to erect HT Electricity Line. Hence, she has filed a petition in W.P.No.28337 of 2012 praying for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner erecting or installing High Tension Electricity Line, 765 Kilo Volt DC Line, over her lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9 at Solakalipalayam, Chenna Samudram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District.
(iii) The further case of the appellant is that this Court, by an order dated 18.10.2012, has disposed of the said W.P.No.28337 of 2012 directing the respondents 2 and 3 to refer the matter to the first respondent to consider the objections of the appellant and to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent / District Collector-cum-District Magistrate sent a notice directing the appellant to appear and in response to the same, the appellant submitted her detailed written objection and written arguments on 25.02.2013 and 11.03.2013 respectively. The first respondent, without considering the objections in proper perspective, vide impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.354/2013/k4, dated 13.06.2013, has rejected her request. Aggrieved by the decision of the first respondent passing the impugned proceedings, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18548 of 2013 before this Court praying to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No.354/2013/k4, dated 13.06.2013 and to forbear the respondents 2 and 3 from in any manner, erecting or installing High Tension Electricity Line 765 Kilo Volt DC Line, over her lands, in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9 at Solakalipalayam, Chenna Samudram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner by holding as under:-
"108. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, a notification has been issued invoking Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, Section 67 (1) of the said Act or the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 made under Section 67 (2) are not attracted and as per Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the respondents can proceed with the placing of electricity supply lines or electric poles for the transmission of the electricity in or over any land, without acquiring the same, and there is no need to obtain the consent of the land owner.
109. In the instant case, the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate has passed the orders, after considering the objections of the petitioner in proper perspective, in consonance with the legal position. The contentions of the petitioner that due to objections raised by the adjacent land owners, alignment has been changed, is not substantiated. While considering the right of the land owner or any person interested to claim compensation, in the light of Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the orders passed under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, reducing in time, utility of the land and diminution in the value, can be raised, as a ground, while making a claim on the adequacy of compensation and the District Collector would consider the same, subject of course to the entitlement of such land owner.
110. In the light of the decisions and discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned order, warranting interference. The impugned order is sustained. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed."
As against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner is before this Court by way of the above writ appeal.
4. We have heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 3 and carefully perused the materials available on record.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would contend that the order of the learned Single Judge is arbitrary, unreasonable, ex-facie illegal, non-application of mind and in violation of settled principles of law. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would further contend that the intention and object of the legislature to exercise powers under Part-III of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 particularly while exercising the power under Section 10, there shall be very little damage as possible as categorically mandated under clause (d) to the agricultural land, over which the transmission line to be drawn. But in this case, it is clearly depicted and demonstrated without any ambiguity that actually the HT Line is drawn at straight line upto the appellant's land but suddenly it took a turn in a zig-zag manner leading exactly on the middle of the appellant's land resulting in causing total damage with an oblique motive to save the neighbouring land for extraneous reasons which is contrary to and in clear violation of the mandate of Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 and therefore the learned Single Judge has miserably failed to consider such vital issue. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further contended that Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides for guaranteed right to property for citizen which is nothing but Human right which cannot be taken away unreasonably, arbitrarily and illegally except in accordance with law relating to property acquisition etc., and even for drawing HT Electric Line over the agricultural lands. For this reason, the Parliament, while enacting the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885, a specific mandatory requirement of provision in Part-III under Section 10(d) that there shall be a little damage as possible while exercising the powers under the part. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that such a statutory obligation as mandated has been violated as the sudden bifurcation or deviation of straight line leading on the middle of the appellant's land.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen that no reason much less any valid acceptable reason in the interest of public as to why and how there was sudden deviation and alignment of HT Line in a zig zag manner that too at the point of appellant's land excepting to say the technical word "TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEASABILITY". The sudden deviation of alignment at the point of appellant's land as demonstrated from the arial view of the drawal of HT Line clearly and without any ambiguity depict that it is deviated so as to save and not to cause even very minimal damage to the adjacent land owner which is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the proposed erection of HT Electricity Line by the respondents 2 and 3 in the middle of the appellant's land in a zig-zag manner and which was not explained in the counter or the arguments advanced by the respondents 2 and 3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the proposed 765 KV HT line passing through the appellant's middle of the land will curtail the entire human habitation and the proper utility of the land which was admitted by the respondents by the counter filed by them stating that there will be magnetic field and radiation of about 90 feet adjacent to the passing of the HT Line. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant has raised the objection before the respondents only to the passing of the HT line passing through the middle of the land and requested to shift the line of about 60 to 80 feet towards the eastern side of the appellant's land which is also belonging to the appellant so that the damage caused to the appellant can be minimized.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also would contend that the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, did not consider the various points raised by the appellant. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.28337 of 2012, the case was referred by the respondents 2 and 3 to the first respondent for consideration of the appellant's objection. But the first respondent has failed to consider the appellant's objection in a proper and perspective manner and rejected the same and passed the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge, without considering the above facts and without testing the order passed by the first respondent's right in law, dismissed the writ petition by holding that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to hear the objection of the appellant which is highly illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and for allowing of the writ appeal as prayed for.
8. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would vehemently contend that the learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments of both sides and after analysing all the material documents placed before this Court, came to a correct conclusion and dismissed the writ petition. It is the further contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that at the point of appellant's land, there was sudden deviation and alignment of HT Line in a zig-zag manner is not at all correct. Estimate was prepared by the Technical Expert to avoid hardship to the public and the cost of the project is estimated at Rs.1,940.00 Crores. In the interest of public alone, the power transmission line was erected and fixed by the respondents 2 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that there is no constitutional violation in erecting the tower and transmission of HT Electric line over the agricultural lands. The learned Special Government Pleader also contended that the objections raised by the appellant were duly considered by the first respondent and thereafter only, the first respondent has passed the impugned order. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence, the learned Special Government Pleader prayed for the dismissal of the writ appeal.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would contend that the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., is a Government of India Enterprise & The Central Transmission Utility under the aegis of Ministry of Power. It is a Corporation of National Importance incorporated as a "Government Company" under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, by the Government of India with a view to develop an efficient Power Transmission System network throughout the country and to establish the National Power Grid in the Country. The respondent Corporation is a Deemed Transmission Lincesee in the capacity of Central Transmission Utility as envisaged under Sections 38 and 40 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that the subject matter of the writ appeal is 765 KV Power Transmission line from Tuticorin Pooling Station (Kovilpatti) to Salem Pooling Station (Dharmapuri) as part of transmission system associated with LTOA generation projects in Tuticorin area which the respondent Corporation has been entrusted with under approval of Government of India vide No.11/4/2007-PG dated 23.06.2010. The anticipated length of the Transmission Line is about 367 KMs with 1000 Towers. It is submitted that route of the transmission line and that of the tower positions were finalized on the basis of techno economical consideration. Pursuant to the approval accorded by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, the work has commenced and as of today, foundations numbering 850 has already been completed. Erection of towers numbering 125 had also been completed. I state that transmission line passes through the petitioner's property connecting Location Nos.AMK 9/9 and AMK 10/0. Foundation work in respect of Location No.AMK 10/0 was completed six months back/ Foundation work in respect of Location No.9/0 is in progress. The cost of the project/scheme is estimated at Rs.1,940.0 Crores and has been envisaged to cater to the power requirement of all southern states and Tamil Nadu in particular and scheduled to be commissioned by February 2014.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 also contended that the work in respect of the project has already commenced and is in progress and foundation work for erection of towers numbering 850 has already been completed. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that the project is scheduled to be completed by February 2014 and any delay in implementing the project, will adversely affect the economic status of the State of Tamil Nadu and the entire nation and the respondent is investing a sum of Rs.1,940.00 Crores for the project.
11. In this case, it is admitted by both sides that the lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9 measuring an extent of 2.08 acres at Solakalipalayam, Chenna Samudram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District belongs to the appellant by virtue of two sale deeds dated 23.01.1982 and 20.06.1988. It is also admitted by both sides that the appellant had already filed a writ petition in W.P.No.28337 of 2012 praying to forbear the respondents from in any manner erecting or installing High Tension Electricity Line, 765 Kilo Volt DC Line, above her lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 278/8 and 278/9 at Solakalipalayam, Chenna- Samudram Village, Kodumudi Taluk, Erode District and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.10.2012. The operative portion of order passed in W.P.No.28337 of 2012 is extracted hereunder:-
"8. In the light of the above said decision of this Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to refer the matter to the District Magistrate concerned for consideration of petitioner's objection, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who in turn shall issue notice to the parties concerned, hear them, conduct an appropriate enquiry and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, particularly considering Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, within a period of four weeks thereafter. In the meanwhile, the parties to the Writ Petition are directed to maintain status quo as on today, in respect of the subject lands alone. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
12. After the above said order was passed in the said writ petition, the appellant has filed objections before the first respondent / District Collector-cum-Magistrate at Erode which was numbered as Na.Ka.No.354/2013/K.4 and on such petition, the appellant has appeared through an Advocate and also filed written submissions before the District Collector-cum-Magistrate, Erode. The first respondent / District Collector, after hearing both the parties, has passed impugned order on 13.06.2013 which reads as follows:-
Proceedings of the District Collector, Erode District Present : Dr. V.K.Shanmugam, I.A.S., R.C.354/2013/K4 Dated 13.6.2013 _____________________________________________________________________ Sub: Laying of High Tension Electrical Line through Lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in Chennasamudram Village - Kodumudi Sub Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District - one Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, Filed a Writ Petition before the Chennai High Court Stating for objections - District Collector enquired And issued orders - regarding.
Ref : 1. Order dated 18.10.2012 in the writ petition No.28337/2012 on the file of High Court, Madras.
2. Letter dated 8.1.2003 of M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
3. Spot inspection of the District Collector on 1.3.2013
4. Enquiry of the District Collector on 11.3.2013 ORDER :
One Tmt. T.Bhuvaneshwari has filed a W.P.No.28337/2012 in the High Court, Madras objecting to lay an electric line passing through the land in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District and orders were passed under reference 1st cited. Accordingly, the Chief Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India has requested in his letter under reference 2nd cited to inspect the aforesaid land and to set right the objections.
The District Collector enquired and conducted the spot inspection in the said place. One Tmt.Bhuvaneshwari, filed W.P.No.28337/2012 in the High Court, Madras and objected to the laying of High Tension Electric Line through the lands in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 in Chennasamudram Village, Erode Taluk, and orders were passed on 18.10.2012, in this case. In that order, it was directed to enquire and decide Under Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act and to pass orders. Based on that, enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, one Tmt.T.Bhuvaneshwari, the objector informed as stated below, in her affidavit which was submitted to the District Collector through her Advocate on 12.3.2013.
She has stated that she owned a land of 2.02 acres in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 at Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District and that high tension electrical line has been laying in the middle of her land. They cultivate turmeric in the said land of 40 cents. The said land has the facility of being irrigated through Kalingarayan canal. The said land is situated in the State High Road from Erode to Karur. She has proposed to construct a residential building in the said land for her sons. In this situated, the Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India has proposed to lay a High Tension Electric Line in the middle of her lands. If such electric line is laid, she could not construct a house in the said land. Further, if the Power Grid Corporation of India, lays a High Tension Electric Line without curves and bends but straightly on the margin of the eastern boundary by 80 feet on the alternate way, the High Tension Electrical Line, would be on the eastern boundary of her land. Moreover, on the road side, there would be place 140 to 150 feet, available on one side. If it is set up like that, she could utilize a portion of the land. In that place, she would be able to construct houses for her sons. Further, as per Section 19(D) of Telegraph Act, the Power Gride Corporation did not act so that minimum loss would be caused to the owner of the land but laid the electrical line with bends and curves over her land, thereby, causing much loss. Therefore, the District Collector has stated that after examination as per Section 17(2) of Indian Telegraph Act and directed to pass order as per Section 17(3). The Chief Manager of Power Grid Corporation appeared in person during the enquiry regarding this and replied to the objection, which is as follows:-
"The Government Publication in S.O.1463(E) dated 24.12.2003 has been published as per Section 10-19, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 164 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, regarding the laying of electrical line.
The Central Electricity Department in its letter dated 23.6.2010 has granted approval for laying 765 KV electrical line from Tuticorin to Dharmapuri.
As has been informed by the objector; in the event of changing the electricity line by 80 feet on the eastern side; there is a situation in which the electricity line would be crossing over the houses, which are there presently. Further, there arises a compulsion for felling down a large number of coconut trees. Consequently, there is a chance of several issues cropping up leading to many individuals raising objections in this regard. As per Section 60(1) of the Indian Electricity Distribution Act and Regulation Act, 2010 scheme could not be formulated in such a manner that the electricity line crosses over the houses already constructed. The objector has requested the District Collector to examine the change of electricity line by 80 feet on the eastern side as per Section 17(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act and issue order under Section 17(3) of the said Act. Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act contemplates that if electricity line has already been laid it should be examined and orders shall be passed for changing it. In this instance, there is no electricity line laid. Hence, under this Section, the demand of the objector could not be accepted.
The present electricity line, which has been laid on the basis of the Techno Economical consideration, is a comprehensive scheme. It was decided to survey and implement the said scheme, so that the owner of the land will incur minimum loss. In this instance, as per the demand put forth by an objector; the electricity line could not be changed and laid. If it is laid by altering 80 feet on the eastern side the loss incurred by the Government will be more than the loss incurred by the petitioner. Further, the electrical tower AMK 10/0 (152/0) has been formed, suitable to the electrical tower AMK 9/0, next to it. If it is altered presently, the AMK 10/0 tower would have to be demolished. If it is demolished like that, the Government would incur further an excessive loss. Therefore, there is not even any possibility for altering the path (electrical line) which has been already surveyed and laid. There are sufficient rules and regulations as per Section 10(D) of Indian Telegraph Act to give compensation to the petitioner for the loss incurred by him".
On the basis of the demand made by the objector; the explanation given by the Principal Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., the spot inspection of the District Collector enquiry, the following details have come to be known:
1. The land belonging to Tmt. T.Bhuvaneshwari, who has presently raised objection to set up the electricity line; is a vacant land.
2. In the event of the objector seeking for altering the electricity line route, since the house, a lot of coconut trees would be adversely affected; there is possibility of many individuals who would raise objection.
3. In case the electricity line route is changed, there would be waste of time and money, as a result of which the public welfare would be affected.
4. As per the Central Electricity Safety and Supply Regulation Act, 2010 there is no provision in the Act to take the high voltage electricity line, over the already constructed houses and the permanent structures.
5. As per Section 19(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, while putting up the electricity line, it should be done in such a manner that the owners of the land will incur lesser loss.
Therefore, on the basis of all these factors and considering the public welfare, the objection raised by the land owner is rejected. It is ordered that permission is granted to the Power Grid Corporation of India Company as per Section 16 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to lay the electricity line over the land in Survey Nos.275/4, 278/3, 8 and 9 Chennasamudram Village, Kodumudi Sub Taluk, Erode Taluk, Erode District.
Sd/- V.K.Shanmugam District Collector, Erode Sd/-
For the District Collector To Tmt. T.Bhuvaneshwari, W/o. Thandavan, E-23, Anna Nagar, Chennai Principal Manager, M/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., 17/4G, Vivekanandar Street, Nasiyanur Road, Erode.
13. The Tamil version of the impugned order dated 13.06.2013 reads as follows:-
<nuhL khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth;; mth;fspd; bray;Kiwfs;/ Kd;dpiy : Kidth; nt/f/rz;Kfk;. ,/M/g/ e/f/354/2013/nf4/ ehs; : 13.06.2013 bghUs; : EiHt[ mDkjp - <nuhL khtl;lk; - <nuhL tl;lk; - bfhLKo cs;tl;lk; - brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; - g[y vz;/275/4, 278/3, 8, kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf cah;kpd; mGj;j kpd;ghij mikj;jy; - Ml;nrgpj;J jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gth; brd;id cah;ePjp kd;wj;jpy; hpl; kD jhf;fy; bra;jJ - khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; tprhuid bra;J cj;jut[ gpwg;gpj;jy; bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it : 1. brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w ePjpg;nguhiz kD vz;/28337/2012 jPh;g;g[iu ehs; : 18/10/2012/ 2/ jp/s;/ gth; fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/. foj ehs; : 08.01.2013.
3/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; g[yj;jzpf;if ehs; : 01.03.2013 4/ khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; mth;fspd; tprhuiz ehs; : 11.03.2013. * * * * * Miz :
<nuhL khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. bfhLKo cs;tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275/4, 278/3, 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf kpd;ghij mikg;gij epy chpikahsh; jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;;thp vd;gth; Ml;nrgid bjhptpj;J brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P.28337/12, jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;L ghh;it 1-d;go jPh;g;g[iu tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjd;nghpy; gth;fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah Kjd;ik nkyhsh; nkw;go g[yj;ij jzpf;if bra;J Ml;nrgid ePf;fp jUkhW ghh;it 2-y; fhQqk; fojj;jpy; nfhhpapUe;jdh;/ ,t;tpdj;jpy; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytuhy; tprhuiz kw;Wk; g[yj;jzpf;if bra;agl;lJ/ <nuhL tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275/4, 278/3, 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf cah;kpd mGj;j ghij bray;tij Ml;nrgpj;J jpUkjp/g[tnd!;thp. vd;gth; brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; W.P.28337/12 d; go tHf;F bjhlh;e;J 18.10.2012 - y; ,t;tHf;fpw;F jPh;g;g[iu tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjpy; tprhuiz bra;J ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; gphpt[ 16-d; fPH; Kot[ bra;J Mizapl bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjdog;gilapy; tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ tprhuizapy; Ml;nrgidjhuuhd jpUkjp/o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gth; 11/03/2013 md;W jdJ tHf;fwp"h; K:yk; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; mth;fsplk; mspj;j jdJ thJiuapy; (Affidavit) gpd;tUkhW bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ <nuhL khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. bfhLKo cs;tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275/4, 278/3, 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fspy; jkf;F 2.02 V/ g{kp cs;sJ vd;Wk;. mjd; tHpahf cah;kpd; mGj;j ghij eLtpy; bfhz;L bry;fpd;wdh;/ ,g;g[yj;jpy; 40 brz;l; g{kpapy; k";rs; gaph; bra;J tUfpnwhk;/ ,g;g{kpahdJ fhsp';fuhad; tha;f;fhy; ghrd trjp bfhz;lJ/ ,g;g{kp <nuhL Kjy; fU:h; tiuapyhd khepy beL";rhiyapy; cs;sJ/ ,g;g{kpapy; vdJ kfd;fSf;F FoapUg;g[ fl;l cj;njrpj;Js;nsd;/ ,e;epiyapy; gth; fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah vdJ g{kpapd; eLtpy; cah; kpd; mGj;j ghij mikf;f cj;njrpj;Js;sdh;/ mt;thW mikj;Jtpl;lhy; vd;dhy; tPL fl;l ,ayhJ/ nkYk; gth; fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah jdJ cah; kpd; mGj;j ghijia tist[ bespthf bfhz;L bry;yhky; neuhf fpHf;F vy;iy Xukhf 80 mo khw;wp mikj;jhy; cah; kpd; mGj;j ghij vdJ g{kpapd; fpHf;F vy;iy Xukhf mika[k;/ nkYk; rhiy g[wkhf 140 Kjy; 150 mo tiu ,lk; xUg[wkhf fpilf;Fk;/ mt;thW mike;jhy; vdJ g{kpapd; xU ghfj;ij vd;dhy; gad;gLj;jpf; bfhs;s ,aYk;/ mjpy; jd; kfd;fSf;F tPL fl;l VJthf ,Uf;Fk; vd;W bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ nkYk; ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) d; go kpd;ghij mikf;Fk;nghJ epy chpikahsh;fSf;F Fiwthf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tpjj;jpy; mikf;fntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ Mdhy; gth;fpnul; fhh;g;nuc&d; gphpt[ 10(o)-d; go epy chpikahsUf;F Fiwthd ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tifapy bray;glhky; vdJ g{kpapy; kpd; ghijia tist[ bespthf bfhz;L brd;W mjpf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLj;jpa[s;sdh;/ vdnt ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17(2) - d;go kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;f ghprPyid bra;J gphpt[ 17(3) - d; go khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; Miz tH';FkhW bjhptpj;Js;shh;/ ,J bjhlh;ghd tprhuizapd;nghJ gth;fphpl; fhh;g;gnurd; Kjd;ik nkyhsh; nehpy; M$uhfp Ml;nrgizf;F fPH;f;fz;lthW gjpy; mspj;Js;shh;/ kpd;ghij mikg;gJ bjhlh;ghf gphpt[ 10-19 gp ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; 1885 kw;Wk; gphpt[ 164 ,e;jpad; vyf;hprpl;o rl;lk; 2003-d; go muR btspaPL S.O.1463 (E) ehs; : 24.12.2003-d;go gpuRhpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
Jhj;Jf;Fo Kjy; jUkg[hp tiu 765 KV kpd;ghij mikg;gJ bjhlh;ghf kj;jpa kpd;rhu Jiw fojk; 11/4/2007/PG ehs; 23.06.2010 - d;go mDkjpaspj;Js;sJ/ Ml;nrgizjhuh; bjhptpj;Js;sthW kpd;ghijia 80 mo fpHf;F g[wkhf khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; m';F jw;nghJ epiyapy; cs;s tPLfspd; nkyhf kpd;ghij mika[k; epiy Vw;gLfpwJ/ nkYk; epiwa bjd;id ku';fis btl;l ntz;oa fl;lhak; Vw;gLfpwJ/ ,jdhy; ,d;Dk; gy gpur;ridfs; Vw;gl tha;g;g[s;sJ/ epiwa egh;fs; Ml;nrgid bjhptpf;Fk; tha;g;g[s;sJ/ ,e;jpa kpd; tpepnahfr;rl;lk; kw;Wk; xG';FKiw rl;lk; 2010 gphpt[ 60(1)-d;go Vw;fdnt fl;lg;gl;oUf;Fk; tPl;od;kPJ kpd;ghij jlk; bry;fpd;w tifapy; jpl;lk; mikf;f ,ayhJ/ Ml;nrgidjhuh; ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17-y; 2-d;go kpd;ghijia 80 mo fpHg[wkhf khw;wp mikf;f ghprPyid bra;J gphpt[ 17(3)-d;go khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; Miz tH';Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhz;Ls;shh;/ ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 17 vd;gJ Vw;fdnt kpd;ghij mikf;fg;gl;oUg;gpd; mjid ghprPyid bra;J khw;wp mikf;f cj;jutpLtjw;fhd rl;lkhFk;/ ,e;neh;tpy; kpd;ghij VJk; mikf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vdnt ,g;gphptpy; Ml;nrgizjhuh; nfhhpf;if Vw;f ,ayhJ/ jw;nghJ mikf;fg;gl cs;s kpd;ghij Techno Economical Considerations - d; mog;gilapy; KGj;jpl;lkhdJ epy chpikahsUf;F Fiwthd ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; gl;rj;jpy; rh;nt bra;J jpl;lk; mikg;g[ Kot[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ,e;neh;tpy; Ml;nrgizjhuh; xUtuJ nfhhpf;ifapd;go kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;f ,ayhJ/ mt;thW fpHg[wk; 80 mo khw;wp mikj;jhy; kDjhuUf;F Vw;gLk; ,Hg;gPl;iltpl mjpf ,Hg;gPL muRf;F Vw;gLk; epiy cs;sJ/ nkYk; kpd;ghij nfhg[uk; AMK 10/0 (152/0) mLj;jjhf mika[k; AMK 9/0 kpd; nfhg[uj;jpw;F Vw;whw;nghy; mikf;fgl;gl;Ls;sJ/ jw;nghJ mjid khw;wpdhy; AMK 10/0 nfhg[uk; ,of;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW ,of;fg;gl;L kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikj;jhy; muRf;F nkYk; mjpf ,Hg;g[ Vw;gLk;/ ,jdhy; Vw;fdnt rh;nt bra;J mikf;fg;gl;l ghijia rpwpJk; khw;wp mikf;f tHptifna ,y;iy/ kDjhuUf;F Vw;gLk; ,Hg;gpw;F ,Hg;gPL tH';f ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o)- d;go nghJkhd tpjpKiwfs; cs;sd vdt[k;. vdnt jw;nghJ cs;s jpl;lj;jpd;gona cah;kpd; mGj;j ghij mikf;f cj;jut[ tH';FkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhz;lhh;/ Ml;nrgizjhuhpd; nfhhpf;if gth;fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/. Kjd;ik nkyhsh; tpsf;fk; kw;Wk; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; g[yj;jzpf;if kw;Wk; tprhuizapd; mog;gilapy; fPHf;fz;l tpgu';fs; mwpatUfpwJ/ 1/ jw;nghJ kpd;ghij mikf;f Ml;nrgiz bra;a[k; jpUkjp o/g[tnd!;thp vd;gtuJ g{kp fhypaplkhf cs;sJ/ 2/ Ml;nrgizjhuh; bjhptpj;Js;sthW kpd;ghij khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; tPLfs;. epiwa bjd;id ku';fs; Mfpait ghjpf;Fk; epiy cs;sjhy; epiwa egh;fs; Ml;nrgiz bra;a tha;g;g[ cs;sJ/ 3/ kpd;ghijia khw;wp mikf;Fk; gl;rj;jpy; fhy tpiuak;. bghUs; tpiuak; Vw;gl;L bghJ eyd; ghjpf;Fk; epiy Vw;gLk;/ 4/ kj;jpa kpd;rhu ghJfhg;g[ kw;Wk; tH';Fjy; xG';FKiw rl;lk; 2010-d;go Vw;fdnt fl;lg;gl;oUf;Fk; tPL kw;Wk; epiyahd fl;Lkhd';fSf;F nkyhf cah;kpd;dGj;j ghij bfhz;L bry;y rl;lj;jpy; tHptif ,y;iy/ 5/ ,e;jpa je;jpr;rl;lk; gphpt[ 10(o) - d;go kpd;ghij mikf;Fk;nghJ epy chpikahsh;fSf;F Fiwthf ,Hg;gPL Vw;gLk; tpjj;jpy; mikf;fntz;Lk;/ vdnt ,itfspd; mog;gilapy; bghJ eyd; fUjpa[k; epy chpikahsuJ Ml;nrgidapid epuhfhpj;J <nuhL khtl;lk;. <nuhL tl;lk;. bfhLKo cs;tl;lk;. brd;drKj;jpuk; fpuhkk; g[y vz;/275/4, 278/3, 8 kw;Wk; 9 g[y';fs; tHpahf kpd;ghij mikj;jpl ,e;jpa je;jp rl;lk; 1885 gphpt[ 16-d; go gth;fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/. epWtdj;jpw;F mDkjp tH';fp cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ/ xk;/- nt/f/rz;Kfk;.
khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth;.
<nuhL/ / cz;ikefy; / cj;jut[g;go / bgWeh;
1/ jpUkjp/ o/g[tnd!;thp.
f/bg/ jhz;ltd;.
E23. mz;zh efh;.
brd;id - 1/ 2/ Kjd;ik nkyhsh;.
j/s; gth; fphpl; fhh;g;gnuc&d; Mg; ,e;jpah ypl;/.
17/4 G tpntfhde;jh; tPjp.
erpaDhh; nuhL.
<nuhL/"
14. It is also admitted by both the parties that as against the said order passed by the first respondent, the appellant has filed W.P.No.18548 of 2013. In this case, before the learned Single Judge, regarding the constitutional validity of erection of the electric tower passing of the HT line through the lands of the appellant was questioned and the learned Single Judge, elaborately discussed the powers conferred under the Electricity Act. But in the appeal grounds, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant specifically admitted in paragraph (i) which reads as follows:-
"(i) The learned Judge misconstrued the facts and case of the appellant with regard to the questioning of the powers of the respondent Corporation by the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant had never raised the issue of power to laying and erecting the HT line by the respondent Corporation but the appellant has questioned the deviation made by the respondent in a zig-zag manner in the alignment between by location No.AMK 9/0 and AMK 10/0 and by passing the HT line through the appellant's middle of the land."
15. Further, it is admitted by both sides that the proposed project is 765 KV HT first of this kind in India. It is not the regular erection of Tower for power transmission and no Court tested the issuance of huge power transmission till today and the radiation of electric transmission is very high and no human habitation in and around the tower of the transmission line is passed. Further, in this case, it is categorically admitted that the appellant is not questioning the powers of the respondent to lay the 765 KV HT line passing through the appellant's land. The main objection is that upto the lands of the appellant, the electric line is coming in straight and suddenly, there is a deviation in a zig-zag manner leading exactly on the middle of the appellant's land resulting in causing total damage with an oblique motive to save the neighbouring land for extraneous reasons and that was only objected by the appellant. Further, the appellant herself admitted that instead of passing the HT line through the middle of the land, it may be drawn one end of her lands. Even at the time of filing the writ petition itself, the appellant / writ petitioner has filed the documents viz., Rough Plan showing the lands of the appellant and also filed a Google Map showing the Tower Nos.6/0, 7/0, 8/0, 9/0 and 10/0. Further, when the appeal is pending, this Court, after perusal of the records, has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed place with the assistance of a technical expert, namely any Engineer in the rank of Superintending Engineer of the TNEB of the area.
16. As per the direction of this Court, the Advocate Commissioner, after giving notice to the parties, has inspected the property with the assistant of technical expert and submitted his report. Further, for the above Advocate Commissioner's report, both the appellant and the respondents have filed their objections and the objections filed by both the parties shall form part of the record.
17. The main objection of the appellant is that the Advocate Commissioner has not correctly noted the direction and he wrongly noted the direction North side as South and South side as North. Further, there is no serious objection regarding the mentioning of physical features. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant objected the direction mentioned in the sketch viz., North side as South and South side as North. In view of fixing the direction wrongly, the Advocate Commissioner has crepted a mistake in his entire report. The Advocate Commissioner, in his report, assessed that a slight adjustment of 1.50 meters towards the western side is possible, which was objected by the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents further objected that the assessment made by the Advocate Commissioner is contrary to the technical feasibility report of the technical expert, namely, the Superintending Engineer of TANTRANSCO provided by the Advocate Commissioner. The technical expert, in his report, after assessing the route of the transmission line between AMK 8/0 and 10/0 has stated that the line between the above said routes could not be deviated.
18. In this case, on the side of the appellant, Google earth map marked for the appellant's lands was produced which was not objected by the learned counsel for the respondents. On seeing the plan and also the Google earth map presented by the appellant, it is very clear that the Tower Nos.6/0, 7/0 and 8/0 are coming in the straight line and in which there is no deviation at all and from Tower No.8/0 to 9/0, it was slightly slanting towards South West direction. Thereafter, upto 11/0, straight line is going on. On seeing the above plan, it is clear that there is no sudden deviation to cross the appellant's land and therefore, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there is a transmission line comes in sudden deviation and run in a zig-zag manner to cross the appellant's land is not at all acceptable one. Further, on a perusal of the plan produced on the side of the appellant, it is clear that from Tower Nos.8/0 to 10/0, the line is not coming through the buildings as shown in the Google earth map. In view of the above circumstances, if the Tower No.8/0 and 10/0 are in a direct line, it will run through the residential area.
19. Further, the first respondent / District Collector, in his impugned order, has stated that since there are lot of residential houses and coconut tress are adversely affect, there is a possibility of any individual to raise objection and further it would be waste of time and waste of money as a result of which public welfare would be affected. Further, putting up the electric line should be done in such a manner that the owner of the land could be incurred lessor loss. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the first respondent / District Collector, after the spot inspection and after through enquiry, has passed the impugned order. Therefore, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is passed for extraneous consideration is not at all acceptable one. Further, in this case, the lands of the appellant is only barren lands. According to the report Advocate Commissioner, only farm house is there in the appellant's land and no other residential houses are there. But contrary to that, it is admitted that in East of the appellant's land, so many residential buildings are there. Even though the Advocate Commissioner, in his report, has wrongly mentioned the direction North side as South and South side as North, at paragraph No.11, he has stated as follows:-
"11. It is further stated that with regard to the order of assessing any possibility of deviation, in my assessment, the possibility of the any deviation is possible only to a slight adjustment about 1.50 meters towards the western side, which has 12.0 meters space as mentioned in the sketch furnished by the Technical Expert-Superintending Engineer."
20. According to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, only to a slight adjustment about 1.50 meters towards the Western side is possible. But it was wrongly mentioned as Western side (As per the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is Eastern side). Hence, even the Advocate Commissioner, after the spot inspection alone with the assistance of technical expert, came to a conclusion that if there is any deviation is possible, it is only about 1.50 meters towards Western side. So towards Eastern side alone deviation is possible and that was also objected by the learned counsel for the respondents stating that the Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Coimbatore, has filed a report, wherein, he has stated that the proposed alignment between tower Loc.9/0 to Loc.10/0 is generally in order leaving sufficient clearance for the Residential buildings nearby EHT line from Loc. 8/0 to 10/0 could not be carried out in straight line avoiding angle point tower at Loc.9/0 due to the following reasons.
1. The line will run over the residential house on the western side of Erode-Karur State highways. (House A marked in the sketch enclosed).
2. The conductor will run at a distance of 1 metre from the Residential house on the eastern side of Erode-Karur State highways. (House B marked in the sketch enclosed). As per Section 60(1)of Central Electricity Authority Regulations 2010, an overhead line shall not cross over an existing building as far as possible and a minimum horizontal clearance of 8.60 metres has to be maintained.
3. Dense Coconut grooves are seen between tower Loc.9/0 and 10/0 in the alternate route requested by the Petitioner.
4. Length of line between tower Loc. 8/0 - Loc. 10/0 is 891 metres and hence a tower at Loc.9/0 is absolutely required.
Under the above conditions, the said line could not be deviated between tower Loc.AMK 8/0 - Loc. AMK 10/0.
21. The learned Single Judge, after considering all the powers conferred under the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885, has passed the order dismissing the writ petition. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18548 of 2013, dated 29.11.2013 and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
22. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
In this case, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court has not drawn the plan with clear directions and further, for the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, both the appellant and the respondents have filed their objections. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the work done by the Advocate Commissioner, we are of the considered view that a sum of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] has to be fixed towards additional remuneration to the Advocate Commissioner. The appellant is directed to pay the said amount of Rs.5,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
[V.D.P.,J.] [G.C.,J.]
Index : Yes 01.04.2015
Internet: Yes
jrl
V.DHANAPALAN, J.
and
G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Jrl
To
1. The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Erode District, Erode.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited,
KR Thoppu, Konakkapadi (PO),
Karukalwadi Village,
Tharamangalam (Via),
Omalur Taluk, Salem District,
Salem.
3. The Chief Engineer,
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited 765 KV DC Line,
17/4 G, Vivekanandar Street,
Gandhi Nagar,
Naciyanoor Road,
Erode.
Pre-delivery judgment made in
W.A.No.1015 of 2014
01.04.2015