(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 3 to 7 and their subordinates from laying the transmission lines from New Vavalthoppur to Mallikundam, which passes through the petitioner's lands in S.Nos.401/2, 4B, 4D, 8A, 401/5, 402/3 and 405/2E of Pallipatti village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, and consequently, direct the respondents 3 to 7 to proceed and lay transmission lines in the original approved route, which passes through the villages of Pottaneri, Sevalanur and Kuppakalipatti, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.)
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to forbear the respondents 3 to 7 and their subordinates from laying the transmission lines from New Vavalthoppur to Mallikundam, which passes through the petitioner's lands in S.Nos.401/2, 4B, 4D, 8A, 401/5, 402/3 and 405/2E of Pallipatti village, Mettur Taluk, Salem District, and consequently, direct the respondents 3 to 7 to proceed and lay transmission lines in the original approved route, which passes through the villages of Pottaneri, Sevalanur and Kuppakalipatti, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner articulated the case of the writ petitioner mainly relying on the fact that the original approved route for installation of transmission lines are now proposed to be revised on erroneous considerations. The original approved route was of no hindrance to the public at large. Instead of completing the entire transmission line works in the original approved route, now the respondents are attempting to change the route and the same would cause inconvenience to the people residing in that locality and including the land belongs to the writ petitioner.
3. It is contended that the writ petitioner is the absolute owner of the land and the respondents are now attempting to erect electric poles inside the patta land of the writ petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 7 enumerated that the respondent undoubtedly, approved the original route as stated by the writ petitioner. However, there was a objection from the pattadhars and on account of some serious objections raised by the land owners in that locality, the respondents have prepared an alternate route without causing any hindrance to any of the pattadhars in that locality. It is specifically contended that the proposed new route for laying of transmission lines will not affect any patta land. Citing this reason only the revised plan is approved. The revised plan / alternate route, the respondents have to lay the transmission line excess of 0.279 kms.
5. The department approved the alternate route on account of the fact that, the alternate route is not causing any hindrance to the patta holders of the land in that locality. It is contended that the respondent Board has sanctioned an estimate originally for the erection of new 33 KV line between Mecheri 110 KV SS and newly sanctioned Pottaneri 33/11 KVSS under DD UGJY (Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana) scheme in Mettur/O&M/Division of Mettur E.D.C at the cost of Rs.75,49,130/- Gross and Rs.73,01,070/- net by the Chief Engineer/Distribution/Erode as per the cost data 2017-2018 prevailed at that time. Now on account of the alternate route a revised estimate has been prepared at the cost of Rs.81,23,630/-gross and nett proposing an alternate route.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that the Board has already started the execution of erection of poles and stringing of lines and 211 numbers of poles has been planted and the erection of 27 poles were stopped on account of the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.28683 of 2018.
7. It is further contended that the project is for the benefit of large number of residents of that locality and therefore, it is imminent to continue the project and complete the same at the earliest possible for the benefit and welfare of the people at large in that locality. In para 8 of the counter it is emphasized that noway the livelihood of the writ petitioners will be affected due to the extension of works proposed to be executed along the road side. The disputed area, is a panchayat road which belongs to Mecheri Panchayat union.
8. Relying on the said counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have not proposed to erect poles in the patta lands belongs to the writ petitioners. Beyond the pleadings in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondent made an assurance that, the Authorities would not erect any electric poles inside the patta land of the writ petitioners. The poles will be erected in the road side without entering in to the patta land of the writ petitioners. This being the assurance provided by the learned counsel for the respondents assisted by the officials Mrs.M.Nirmala, Assistant Executive Engineer and Mr.M.Karthik, Assistant Engineer.
9. This Court is of an opinion that, the grievances of the writ petitioner is taken care by the officials concerned and in the event of any violation in this regard, the writ petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate action. It is made clear that the respondents are permitted to complete the project
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
in all aspects at the earliest possible for the welfare of the public at large by erecting the poles and for completion of transmission lines in that locality by road side as per the alternate route now approved. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievances advanced by the writ petitioners are premature and the respondents have not installed or erected any poles inside the patta land of the writ petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.