Madras High Court
D.Shankar vs The District Magistrate And on 21 August, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.14914 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 21.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.14914 OF 2022
AND
W.M.P. NOS.14132, 14136 & 14137 OF 2022
1.D.Shankar
2.V.Jayalakshmi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The District Magistrate and
The District Collector,
G.S.T. Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.
2. The Sub Collector
Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, No.130, G.S.T.Road
Chengalpattu – 603 001.
4. The Executive Engineer
Transmission Line Construction
1/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14914 of 2022
TANTRANSCO, Ponnamalle,
Chennai – 600 056.
5. The Assistant Superintendent of Police,
Chengalpattu. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari and call for the records of the impugned order vide
No. RC No. 5690/2022/M2 dated 02.06.2022 passed by the first Respondent
and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari, SC, for
Mr.P.Gnanasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, AGP for RR-1 & 2
Mr.J.Ravindran, AAG
Assisted by Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, for RR-3
to 5
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the order vide RC No.5690/ 2022/M2 dated 02.06.2022 passed by the first respondent and to quash the same. 2/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022
2. Pending the writ petition, W.M.P.No.14132 of 2022 has been filed to permit the petitioners to join together and file a single writ petition and being satisfied with the reasons stated therein, the same stands allowed on payment of single court fee.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the second petitioner is the owner of the property in S.R.No.47/1A, 47/1B, 47/2A, 49/3A, 49/4A1 and she is the wife of one D.Velu who is the legal heir of one D.Lakshmiammal. Originally the property belonged to D.Lakshmiammal and on her demise in the year 1998, it devolved on her sons namely, D.Shankar, D.Chandrasekar and D.Velu. The petitioner's husband D.Velu and his brother D.Chandrasekar died in the year 2004 and 2020 respectively.
4. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the said D.Lakshmiammal/Mother of first petitioner and Mother – in – Law of the second petitioner purchased the plots measuring about 0.31 cents in the year 1967; 0.38 cents in the year 1970; 0.35 in the year 1973; 0.39 in the year 3/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 1973 and 0.36 in the year 1985 in all summing upto a total of 1 acre and 0.79 cents in Pattravakkam, Elanthope Village situated in Chengalpattu District.
5. It is the further averment of the petitioners that one M/s.Mando Automotive India Private Limited along with many private parties entered into the petitioners plot without any permission and laid High Tension Cables in the year March, 2022. The petitioners raised objection to the respondents 1 to 4 pointing out the applicability of Indian Telegraph Act and issued legal notice to the Collector dated 25.03.2022 and 06.05.2022 and since there was no action, the petitioners filed W.P.No.12797 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 12.05.2022, issued direction to the first respondent therein to conclude the inquiry after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and to any third party who may be affected by the decision, based on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate who appeared in W.P.No.12797 of 2022 that an inquiry is ongoing in respect of the representation of the petitioners dated 25.03.2022 and observed that till such inquiry is concluded the respondents shall not lay the 4/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 high tension cable within the petitioners property.
6. It is the further averment of the petitioners that thereafter enquiry was conducted on 20.05.2022 and the second petitioner appeared for the enquiry and requested the respondents to remove all the structures and objected to the installation of high tension cables which runs across their plot and which will cause risk and damage to the life and will also decrease the value of the plots. Thereafter, second enquiry was proposed to be held on 26.05.2022 and the same was cancelled due to the visit of Hon'ble Prime Minister to Chennai and third enquiry was held on 01.06.2022. In the third enquiry, the second petitioner was not allowed to submit her objections. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 and immediately on 03.06.2022, the electricity board started the stringing of high tension cables across the petitioners’ plots and completed the same to favour M/s.Patel Engineering Limited, M/s.Sashwat Land Projects (P) Limited and M/s.The Vismaya Construction (P) Limited.
7. It is the further averment of the petitioners that even a bare perusal 5/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 of the sketch filed along with the writ petition makes it clear that there are huge poromboke lands available through which the high tension cables could have been routed, however, the respondents, without erecting high tension cables in the poromboke lands, intentionally erected high tension cables across the petitioners plots in order to favour private individuals which will decrease the value of the petitioners plots. Inspite of specific objection made and pointing out the feasibility of an alternative route to reroute the cables, the same having not been considered, left with no other alternative, the present petition has been filed before this Court for a direction to the respondents to realign the transmission towers.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that without the due process of law and without finding out the availability of alternate alignment without disturbing the lands of the petitioner, the respondents have erected the transmission lines, which is a clear violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
9. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing 6/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 for the petitioners that inspite of specific objections having been raised by the petitioners and also pointing out the alternate route available for taking the transmission lines through the poramboke lands, the respondents, for reasons best known, have routed the high tension transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners, which not only causes grave prejudice to the petitioners by decreasing the value of their lands, but also affects their livelihood and is a clear infraction of Article 330-A of the Constitution.
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent dated 21.08.2024, drew the attention of this Court to the submissions made therein, wherein the respondents have stated that if the alignment is to be changed at the request of the petitioners, the petitioners have to bear the entire cost of such realignment of transmission towers. Further laying emphasis, learned senior counsel for the petitioners stressed that the stand of the respondents in asking the petitioners to waive their right to compensation and at the same time to remit a sum of Rs. 81,11,196/- is not only unreasonable, but is in stark violation of principles of natural justice as TANTRANSCO has to bear 7/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 the cost of realignment, which cannot be imposed on the petitioners, as the taking of transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners by the respondents without finding out all the other feasible routes has to be put against the respondents and it cannot be fastened on the petitioners. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel that though an amount of Rs.81,11,186/- is sought to be claimed by the respondents for removing the high tension cables and rerouting the high tension lines, notwithstanding the fact that the compensation that is payable to the petitioners for egressing the lands of the petitioner, even as per G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 30.10.2019 is only to an extent of about Rs.2,53,680/-.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that such action of the respondents is only favouring private individuals to get transmission lines in detriment to the petitioners thereby preventing the petitioners of their livelihood and usage of the lands as per their choice. It is further submitted that even if realignment is made, it will affect the petitioners plots, however, the petitioners had graciously agreed to waive the compensation payable to them if the alignment is changed, which 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 will be less detrimental to the lands of the petitioners, but the respondents are insisting the petitioners to bear the cost of realignment which is equal to an amount of Rs.81,11,186/-, which is purely the fault of the respondents and not that of the petitioners. The petitioners are not liable to pay even a penny, though they are entitled to be compensated for the lands, that is sought to be taken away from them, yet, the respondents, for the entire fault on their part, want the petitioners to part with the amount, which is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel prays for appropriate directions to the respondents.
12. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as per expert opinion, the transmission lines were drawn. If the petitioners wants to have a change of route for the transmission lines, which have already been installed, the petitioners have to bear the cost of Rs.81,11,186/- , though the petitioners would be entitled to a compensation of around Rs.2,53,680/-. He further submitted that the alternative route takes a slanting path, the length of its aerial crossing on the petitioners land would be longer than the length of crossing as per the approved route and further 9/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 submitted that the petitioners did not accede to the alternative route either as the alternative route would also cut across their land. After considering all the things in proper perspective, the impugned order had come to be passed which warrants no interference.
13. This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
14. Admittedly the petitioners are the owners of the land in S.R.No.47/1A, 47/1B, 47/2A, 49/3A, 49/4A1 of Pattravakkam Village in Chengalpattu District. The said lands were utilized for erection of 110 Kv DC Line on DC Tower with panther conductor by making LILO in 110Kv Veerapuram to Thirumani feeder for the extension of new EHT supply to M/s.Mando Automotive India Private Limited. The Executive Engineer, TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 17.05.2022 requested the first respondent to grant enter upon permission into the petitioners land and the first respondent passed the impugned order. Thereafter, the respondents have 10/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 erected high tension transmission lines across the petitioners land.
15. Earlier the petitioners filed W.P.No.12797 of 2022 for direction to the respondents therein to not to interfere with the petitioner's possession of the lands for the purpose of laying high tension electric cable/wire in the lands in S.R.No.47/1A, 47/1B, 47/2A, 49/3A, 49/4A1 of Elanthope- Pattravakkam Village in Chengalpattu District and this Court vide order dated 12.05.2022, issued direction, on the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that an inquiry is ongoing in respect of the representation of the petitioners dated 25.03.2022 and, therefore, directed the first respondent therein to conclude the inquiry after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and to any third party who may be affected by the decision, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and observed that till such inquiry is concluded the respondents shall not lay the high tension cable within the petitioners property, as has been undertaken by the respondents. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the impugned order has come to be passed by the first respondent. 11/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022
16. Though the respondents have sought for payment of Rs.81 Lakhs and odd for shifting the high tension lines, which have been erected in the lands of the petitioners, however, it is to be pointed out that before erection of the transmission lines, feasibility for such erection and the alternatives routes that are available for the erection of the said transmission lines have to be found out before the respondents could embark upon finalizing the route for the transmission lines. However, even an elaborate scrutiny of the materials placed before this Court do not reveal that such a task had been undertaken by the respondents before finalizing the route in which the transmission lines had to be taken.
17. After deciding on the route in which the transmission lines are to be taken, respondents 3 to 5 have sought enter upon permission from the 1 st respondent at which point of time, the earlier round of writ petition had come to be filed. At that point, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents therein by the learned Government Advocate that before passing any orders, the petitioners and other interested parties would be heard and till such time no high tension lines would be erected in the petitioners’ 12/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 lands.
18. There could be no quarrel that based on the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, an order has come to be passed on the aforesaid lines. However, there is no material to infer as to whether during the conduct of the enquiry, the issue of rerouting the transmission line was taken and any feasibility report was tabled by the respondents with regarding to rerouting the transmission lines. In fact, even before this Court, it is the stand of the respondents that rerouting of the transmission lines is possible with minimal damage to the petitioners’ lands. However, the reason for taking the transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners have not been spelt out.
19. In this regard, it is to be pointed out that the transmission lines is being laid to provide high tension electricity supply to private organisation and it is not intended for any public purpose. When the transmission lines are not intended for public purpose but is being erected purely for private purpose for the benefit of private entities, it is a duty cast on the respondents 13/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 to see that the public is not put to inconvenience. The authorities, who are public officials, ought to keep in mind that their main duty is to serve the public and not cater to the whims of the private entities. However, in the present case, as the materials on record reveal, the public officials have fallen prey to the guiles of the private entities and are trying to favour the private entities by taking the transmission lines through the lands of the petitioners, though alternative route is available, which is also feasible, but would entail a bit more expenditure for the private entities, over and above the amount that is to be paid towards utilisation of the lands of the petitioners’.
20. In fact, even during the enquiry, the petitioners, for the purpose of taking the transmission lines through the alternative route, in which as well, some portion of the lands of the petitioners would be used, the petitioners, as a benevolent gesture, had submitted that they would waive receipt of the compensation for the utilisation of their lands. However, the said gesture had not been reciprocated by the respondents. Rather, to cover up their wrongful act, the respondents now want the petitioners to part away with 14/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 about Rs.81 Lakhs for the purpose of rerouting the transmission lines. When the respondents have not taken precaution by finding alternative routes and also putting the petitioners on notice before their lands were to be utilised for the purpose of erecting the transmission lines, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to claim compensation for dismantling the transmission lines, which have already been erected and to re-erect the same in an alternative alignment.
21. It is to be pointed out that if the transmission lines were to be erected for a public purpose, then it would be just and reasonable for the respondents to find an alignment, which would incur minimalistic expenditure, as the exchequer would be paying the said sum towards such erection. However, the transmission lines, which is sought to be erected, is for private purpose and such being the case, the public should not be put to hardship and prejudice by erecting transmission lines on their lands to accommodate the private players at the cost of the law abiding citizen. Further, it is to be pointed out that the transmission lines erected is not for residential purposes; rather the erection of the said lines is for business 15/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 purpose, which will enrich the private entities. Such being the case, the citizens should not be put to prejudice by usurping the lands, under the guise of installation of transmission lines, which are purely for private purpose. Such an act on the part of the respondents cannot be allowed to be perpetuated, as otherwise, Article 300-A of the Constitution would be subverted to the whims of the respondents.
22. When the respondents have not followed the due legal principles while erecting the transmission lines by not following the procedures prescribed, the cost, if any, incurred in dismantling the already installed lines cannot be put against the petitioners’, who have, even at the earliest point of time, had objected to the transmission lines passing through their lands. The respondents ought to have been careful in finding the best line that would satisfy Section 300-A of the Constitution, but the respondents, with a view to favour the private entities, have put the petitioners’ in jeopardy and this Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, being the custodian of justice, cannot be a mute spectator to such an act on the part of the respondents, when the rights of the petitioners’ are prejudiced. Therefore, 16/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be allowed to survive when the whole cause for the loss is purely to be fastened on the official respondents.
23. Since the private entities are to be benefitted from the erection of transmission lines, the due course for the official respondents is to recover the amount towards the provisioning of the transmission lines from the private entities or for that matter, if wrongful decision had been taken, the amount should be borne by the respondents and the petitioners’ who are in no way connected with the wrongful act of the respondents can be fastened with any liability towards the cost of payment towards realignment.
24. The petitioners, by their act of benevolence, have agreed to waive the compensation if the alignment is changed, while the respondents claim that the petitioners cannot by waiving their right of getting compensation request TANTRANSCO to bear the cost of realignment which is equal to an amount of Rs.81,11,186/- as the eligible compensation payable to the petitioners is only a paltry sum of Rs.2,53,680/-. As discussed above, the 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 fault on the respondents cannot be transposed to the shoulders of the petitioners, as the proper course of the respondents ought to have been to find out the possible alignments and the least that would cause inconvenience to the general public ought to have been selected as the private entities would be bearing the cost of the high tension lines and it does not involve any public interest. However, without proceeding in that direction, the respondents have, straightaway, proceeded to install the transmission lines in the lands belonging to the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that alternate alignments were available. This act of the respondents is wholly condonable as private interest cannot be allowed to have a march over individual rights to land under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Therefore, the said act of the respondents is per se unsustainable and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent deserves to be set aside.
25. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in RC No.5690/2022/M2 dated 02.06.2022 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The respondents are 18/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 directed to realign the transmission towers, without affecting the lands of any individual, including the petitioner or with least disturbance to any individual and cost towards such utilisation of lands of any individuals be paid to them in accordance with law, as the transmission lines for providing high tension supply is being provided to private entities for which the individuals should not be made to bear the cost. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs in this petition.
21.08.2024 Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No pri/GLN Note to office: Issue order copy on 30/08/2024.
19/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 To
1. The District Magistrate and The District Collector G.S.T. Road, Chengalpattu – 603 001.
2. The Sub Collector Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.
3. The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, No.130, G.S.T.Road Chengalpattu – 603 001.
4. The Executive Engineer Transmission Line Construction TANTRANSCO, Ponnamalle Chennai – 600 056.
5. The Assistant Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu.
20/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.14914 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Pri/GLN W.P. NO. 14914 OF 2022 s 21.08.2024 21/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis