IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:25.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.25613 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 Mrs.Shashi Devi Dhanuka ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India (PGCIL), No.400/230 K.V.Sub Station, Kalivanthapattu, Guduvancheri - 603 202. 2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, NPKKR Maligai, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3.The Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B. Chennai South, NPKKR Maligai, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TNEB Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram District. 5.The Assistant Engineer, TLC/TNEB, Chromepet, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the 1st respondent's proceedings SR- II/KVPT/TLC/F-505/2010/1192, dated 19.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to erect the electricity posts by providing access to the petitioner's property and pass such further orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner :Mr.M.Vivekanandan For Respondents :Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran For M/s.Aiyar & Dolia for R1 Mr.A.Selvendran for R2 to R5 ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings SR-II/KVPT/TLC/F-505/2010/1192, dated 19.10.2010 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to erect the electricity posts by providing access to the petitioner's property. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the land comprised in Survey No.19/1A measuring to an extent of 51 cents bearing Patta No.11, situated at No.111, Karunguzhipallam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, and another land covered in Survey No.58/5B measuring to an extent of 83 cents bearing patta No.11, in the same place. When the petitioner is in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the suit schedule property, 1st respondent started digging for erecting foundations so as to enable high grid electricity transmission lines. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner herein is that the foundation erected for alignment of high electricity line, as proposed, has to be slightly altered for about 10 feet, then only the petitioner would be able to reach his rest of the property. If the slightest alignment to an extent of 10 feet cannot be made, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire property cannot be utilized by the petitioner, as the very foundation for erection of alignment of high electricity line has been put up in the front portion of the petitioner's property, which is blocking the entire pathway. 3. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though he is aware of the fact that the respondent is not liable to issue notice before digging foundation for alignment of high electricity lines, he has made only a limited prayer to find out the possibility of change in alignment for about 10', so as to have a pathway to reach his property, for which, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the entire alignment work have been done only on the basis of the finalization of the Most Techno Economically Feasible Route. Therefore, it is not possible to avoid the site belonging to the petitioner and if any such re-alignment is made, there will be an adverse impact on the laying of transmission towers in the entire stretch of 36 kms and the same will have serious impact in the overall project. Therefore, the shifting of the line, as requested by the petitioner, is not possible for the reason that while fixing the transmission line route, only the Most Techno Economically Feasible Route has been chosen, which will cause least https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ damage to the land users. In the present case, the foundation in the petitioner's land has also completed during October'2010 itself. 4. The 1st respondent-the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. has been entrusted with the task of construction of 230 KV Double Circuit transmission lines from Kalpakkam to Siruseri, which is part of transmission system associated with Kalpakkam Proto Type Fast Breeder Reactor under the approval of Government of India, Ministry of Power, vide letter bearing Ref.No.11/16/2003-PG, dated 18.03.2005. The anticipated line length is around 36 kms with 143 towers and the estimated cost of the project is Rs.73.75 crores (approximately) and the entire project is scheduled to be over by February, 2011. After the approval of the route alignment on 11.03.2010, the foundation work had already been completed and moreso, the stringing activity had also commenced on 07.01.2011. As per the Electricity Act, 2003, 17.5 mtrs on either side of the alignment line is the electricity safety zone, wherein the trees beyond a particular height and permanent structures beyond safety clearance are prohibited. 5. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st respondent Corporation, a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, is not required to issue any personal notice or get prior consent from the private land owners, interms of the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, or the Works of Licensees Rules, 2006. Therefore, the petitioner has no case to say that the respondent, without notice to the petitioner, has started digging the land belonging to the petitioner for laying of the transmission towers. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed with the proposition. However, since the counter filed by the 1st respondent also states that once the foundation in the petitioner's land has already been completed during October'2010 itself, the question of entertaining the request of the petitioner for re-alignment by giving 10 feet of land is not possible. 6. Further, taking into consideration the interest of large number of people from the area as against the interest of an individual, the deviation in the transmission lines could not be practically achieved. Therefore, this Court, for the reasons stated above, finding no merit in the writ petition, dismisses the same. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rkm To 1.The Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India (PGCIL), No.400/230 K.V.Sub Station, Kalivanthapattu, Guduvancheri - 603 202. 2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Rep. by its Chairman, NPKKR Maligai, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3.The Chief Engineer, T.N.E.B. Chennai South, NPKKR Maligai, 800 Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, TNEB Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram District. 5.The Assistant Engineer, TLC/TNEB, Chromepet, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr.M. ViveKanandan, Advocate Sr.6199 + 1 cc to M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, ADvocate sR.6016 W.P.No.25613/2010 KK(CO) Eu 24.2.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/