Madras High Court
R.V.Kamalanathan vs The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director on 26 June, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
AND
W.M.P.No.22550 of 2025
R.V.Kamalanathan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
144, Anna Salai
Chennai District
2.The Managing Director
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
144, Anna Salai
Chennai District
3.The Superintendent Engineer
General Construction Circle
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
182, Dr.Subbrayan Road
Tadabad, Coimbatore District
4.The Executive Engineer
Transmission Line Construction
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
Perundurai
Erode District .. Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
rd
issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 3 respondent
proceeding in Ka.No.87/Me.Pa.Po/PoKava/Kovai/USePo/Po/MuThaVa/Ko Manu/
2025 dated 06.03.2025 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultra vires.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramaraj
For Respondents : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed questioning the communication of
the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2025, wherein the petitioner was informed that the
respondents are going to proceed further to modify the existing high voltage
electric tower in the subject property.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property was purchased by
him through a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2019. The petitioner was in
possession and enjoyment of the property. One of the electric towers was erected
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
in a portion of the subject property. While so, on 02.01.2025, some unknown
persons entered into the property and started to measure the existing electric tower
and they informed the petitioner that they are going to expand the electric tower by
altering the same and virtually, an attempt was made to occupy the entire property
and deprive the petitioner of his property. Hence, the petitioner sent a legal notice
dated 04.01.2025, raising objections. On receipt of the same, the impugned
rd
communication dated 06.03.2025, came to be issued by the 3 respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
rd
3. The 3 respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions
are extracted hereunder :
“f. I submit that this Respondent is in the process of Strengthening the
existing 110KV SC Frode – Pugalur line on SC tower with Dog/Leopard
conductor into 110 KV DC line DC towers with Panther conductor in Salem
Operation Circle at an estimated cost of Rs.3.252.37 lakhs, sanctioned vide (Per).
CH.TANTRANSCO Proceedings No.175, dated 23.11.2015. The scheme was
approved by Government of Tamilnadu vide G.O (Ms) No.65, Energy (A1)
Department, dated:04.12.2017.
g. This proposal envisages strengthening of the existing 110KV Erode –
Pugalur SC line on SC tower with Dog/ Leopard conductor of route length 39.613/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025kms into 110 KV DC line on DC towers with Panther conductor. The existing 110
KV SC line is having Dog conductor with a loading capacity of 53 MVA. The life
period served by the above line is more than 62 Years. The peak so far reached on
the above feeder is 70.49 MVA at Pugalur 230 KVSS end and 62.87 MVA at
Erode 110 KV SS and hence the line is getting overloaded.
h. I submit that the existing Dog conductor will not be adequate to cater
the future load growth in the 110 KV substations connected in the 110 KV
Pugalur Erode feeder. The conductor has become aged and due to the ageing of
conductor, further usage of this line will lead to snapping of conductor and
thereby causing danger to human and animal lives. Already breakdown are
experienced in the recent years due to jumber cuts and snapping of the conductor.
Under such condition, the feeder capacity will not be adequate to cater the
proposed addition in the above feeder and will be overloaded. Further, the
conductor has become brittle due to ageing and needs to be replaced with Panther
conductor as per the standardization of conductor. It has been proposed to replace
the existing 110KV Erode Pugalur Single circuit line into Double circuit line on
DC towers with Panther conductor (i) considering the future load growth and (ii)
to avoid breakdowns due to jumber cuts and snapping of conductor due to ageing.
The corridor width for both 110 KV SC line and 110 KV DC line are same and
fixed as 22 metres as per CEA Regulations.
i. I submit that it was proposed to link the already converted 66 KV line
into 110 KV DC line on DC towers at tower Loc. 17 and to run as 110 KV DC
line from Loc.17 Loc.1 (Erode 230 KV SS), thus forming 2 circuits, i.e., Erode-
Pugalur 110 KV SC line and Erode – Ayyarmalai 110 KV SC line, to cater the
future load growth.
j. By virtue of the provisions contained in sub section (2) (a) of section
185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Board being the Transmission utility and
Licensee will exercise the powers of the Telegraph Authority under the provisions
of section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which have already been conferred
upon the Board under section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act.
k. I state that in view of the approval in terms of Section 164 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, no notice or consent of the owner/occupier of any land is
required for erection of towers. I state that though notice or consent is not
required to be given still, a public notice was published in New Indian Express4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025and Dinakaran on 20.11.2018 calling for objections. I further state that since no
objections were received the proposal was published in the Gazette on
16.01.2019.
l. The Government of Tamilnadu vide G.O.Ms.No.65 Energy (A1)
department dated 04.12.2017, have permitted the TANTRANSCO as per section
68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for executing 108 schemes throughout the
State and one of the schemes approved by the Government for erection of 110 KV
SC line DC towers with panther conductor and LILO portion to Sivagiri 110
KVSS in the existing 110 KV Erode Pugalur feeder.
m.I state that by proceedings dated 22.12.2016, the Chief Engineer,
TANTRANSCO accorded approval to the route map and by proceedings dated
30.11.2018 the entire work profile was approved by the Chief Engineer. While
approving the profile, the Chief Engineer / TANTRANSCO, Chennal -2 had laid
the following conditions:
1.A minimum ground clearance of 6,10m must be ensured
throughout the length of the line.
2.A minimum vertical clearance of 2.75m must be ensured
between existing LT/HT/P&T lines.
3.A minimum required horizontal clearance of 12.20m for trees on
either side throughout the line.
n. I submit that the line work from tower Loc. 17 to Ayyarmalai 230 KV
SS was completed and line energized. Both 110 KV SC lines meet at Loc.17 and
is proposed to run as DC line from Loc. 17 to Loc.1 (Erode 230 KVSS). The
present stage is as follows:-
1 Total Distance 4.58 kms
2 Total Distance Covered –
3 Total number of Towers 17
4 Total number of Tower completed 14
5 Project schedule 06/2025
o. I state that while proceeding with the execution of the work, the
Petitioners herein made an objection in erecting the towers in their land.
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
p. I reiterate that as stated above, TANTRANSCO had secured all
statutory approvals under Section 164 and 168 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before
initiating of the project.
q. I state that once the project is completed, it would be possible to achieve
the uninterrupted power supply, therefore the overwhelming public interest should
prevail over individual interest. I further submit that major portion of the project
has been completed.”
4. The respondent is now in the process of strengthening the existing 110
KV SC Erode-Pugalur line. In that process, the existing 110 KV SC Erode-Pugalur
single circuit line is going to be converted as double circuit line. Hence, steps were
taken for erecting towers in the property belonging to the petitioner, after getting
necessary statutory approvals under Sections 164 and 168 of the Electricity Act,
2003.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under Section
10(d) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (in short “the Act”), since what is now being
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
carried out by the respondents is only a modification of the existing tower that is
already available in the property. In other words, only a improvement is being
done by the respondents and therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any
compensation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is now being deprived of the entire property and therefore, if the
respondents want to continue with the erection of towers in the entire property,
they have to acquire the property and pay adequate compensation to the petitioner.
In the absence of the same, it will deprive the petitioner of the constitutional right
guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
7. This Court has carefully considerd the submissions made on either side
and the materils available on record.
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
8. Insofar as restraining the respondents to proceed further with the work,
such a course of action cannot be taken, since the work is being carried out after
obtaining necessary statutory approvals under Sections 164 and 168 of the
Electricity Act. Therefore, the limited issue that is involved in the present writ
petition pertains to the acquisition of property and payment of compensation to the
petitioner.
9. The respondents have taken a stand that no compensation is payable to the
petitioner, since the respondents are only improving upon an already existing tower
in a portion of the property.
10. The above stand taken by the respondents is unsustainable. The property
which is now going to be utilised for laying towers, will virtually prevent the
petitioner from using the property in future. Therefore, wherever there is
deprivation of enjoymnet of the property, necessarily, compensation amount has to
be paid. That is the purport and ambit of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
11. The next question is as to whether the respondents must be directed to
pay compensation under Section 10(d) of the Act. The respondents have taken a
very clear stand that they are not liable to pay compensation. This means that zero
compensation stand taken by the respondents.
12. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of
similar nature in The Power Grid Corporation of India Limited and Others Vs.
N.Baskar and Others (W.A.No.380 of 2020 decided on 18.08.2021), wherein it
was held as follows :
“5. We are concerned with the interpretation of two provisions, namely,
Section 10(d) and 16(3). Section 10(d) comes under Part III of the Indian
Telegraph Act, which deals with the power of the Telegraphic Authority to
place telegraphic line and posts. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, Section 10(d)
imposes a responsibility on the telegraph authority to make sure that any
property which it deals with is put into a little damage as possible while
exercising its power. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has widened the
scope to include “any property” and, therefore, “any damage”. As the
provision is couched with a wider connotation, restrictive meaning is contrary
to the object and rationale leading to its interpretation.
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
6. Section 10(d) has to be read in conjunction with Section 16(3).
Section 16(3) speaks of “any dispute”. Therefore, one has to concern with the
disputes between the owner and the telegraphic authority. We cannot define the
dispute in a restrictive way. Such definition is not meant to be introduced
under Section 16(3) and that is the reason why it clearly says that any dispute
between the parties while exercising the power by the telegraphic authority
under Section 10(d). Therefore, Section 10(d) imposes an element of
responsibility to the telegraphic authority asking it to exercise caution and
restraint with respect to a possible damage to any property, any dispute in the
exercise of such a power would be amenable to Section 16(3). The word
‘sufficiency of compensation’ has also to be given a wider interpretation. When
we speak about the sufficiency of compensation it will also include the case of
no-compensation as well. Otherwise not only Section 10(d) but Section 16
would become redundant and otiose. There is no difficulty in understanding
the aforesaid provision in Section 16(3), which confers the power on the
District Court to adjudicate upon any dispute between the telegraphic authority
on the one hand and the owner on the other hand.
7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to permit the first
respondent/writ petitioner to approach the District Court within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by invoking
Section 16(3) by making an application. On such application, we expect the
jurisdictional District Court to decide all the issues on the question of
sufficiency of the compensation provided the writ petitioner would be able to
show the damage.”
13. The Division Bench dealt with the scope of Sections 10(d) and 16(3) of
the Act. The Division Bench came to a conclusion that even where the respondents
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
take a stand that they are not liable to pay compensation, it must be deemed to be
zero compensation and consequently, the land owner will be entitled to go before
the District Court under Section 16 of the Act. Accordingly, the Division Bench
permitted the writ petitioner to approach the District Court within a time frame and
invoke Section 16(3) of the Act by making an application. This Court must also
take into consideration the judgment passed by a Division Bench in Ponnusamy
and Others Vs. The Union of India and Others (W.A.No.1178 of 2021 decided on
19.04.2021), wherein it was held that the District Collector cannot go into the
question of compensation and decide the same.
14. It is also relevant to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century Textiles and Industries
Limited and Others [(2017) 5 SCC 143] and the relevant paragraphs are extracted
hereunder :
“27. At this stage, we deal with the direction of the Division Bench
regarding compensation payable to the writ petitioner, or for that matter to the11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025State Government. In the first instance, no such claim was laid by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition or by the State Government before the High Court.
Furthermore, the High Court could not have given this task to the District
Collector, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Telegraph
Act, 1885 which are extended to laying down of electricity lines. As per this
provision, such an authority vests with the District Judge.
28. These are sufficient reasons to allow Civil Appeal No. 10951 of 2016
preferred by the Power Grid by setting aside those directions. Ordered
accordingly. We make it clear that if the writ petitioner feels that it is entitled to
any compensation, the appropriate course of action is to file a suit before the
District Judge concerned for this purpose. It would also be apt to point out at this
stage that the Central Government has framed guidelines dated 15-10-2015 in this
behalf which inter alia provide that the issue of compensation may be resolved
having regard to the mode and manner of assessment of compensation as per the
said guidelines. Therefore, it would always be open to the writ petitioner to avail
the remedy as per the said guidelines.”
15. On a combined reading of all the above judgments, it comes to light that
the land owner cannot be deprived of compensation and if a lesser compensation is
paid or no compensation is paid, it is always left open to the land owner to
approach the District Court under Section 16 of the Act and claim for the
compensation.
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
16. In the light of the above discussion, this Court holds that the petitioner
has a right to claim compensation and there shall be a direction to the petitioner to
approach the jurisdictional District Court within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and submit an application invoking Section
16(3) of the Act. On such application being filed, the jurisdictional District Court
shall decide all the issues on the question of sufficiency of the compensation
provided to the petitioner and take a decision preferably within a period of six
months from the date of filing of the application.
This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Connected
W.M.P. is closed.
26.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
gya
To
1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
144, Anna Salai
Chennai District
2.The Managing Director
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
144, Anna Salai
Chennai District
W.P.No.19996 of 2025
3.The Superintendent Engineer
General Construction Circle
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
182, Dr.Subbrayan Road
Tadabad, Coimbatore District
4.The Executive Engineer
Transmission Line Construction
The Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd.
Perundurai
Erode District
26.06.2025
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:31:42 pm )