This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent/District Collector dated 04.10.2016, rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners against the drawal of power lines by erecting the towers through their lands.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.
3. There is no dispute to the fact that the impugned order passed by the District Collector was in pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885, wherein the District Collector is empowered to look into the grievance of the land owner/Objector as well as the claim made by the Electricity Board and decide as to whether the objections raised by the land owner/Objector is sustainable. In this case, from the perusal of the order passed by the first respondent impugned in this writ petition, it is seen that out of the total 72 towers sanctioned for the project, 70 towers have already been erected/installed and only two towers are yet to be erected/installed, which could not be done in view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by these petitioners. It is also seen that Rs.7 crores have been allotted for the said project and because of the pendency of the writ petition, the project is not able to be completed. The District Collector has also pointed out that the petitioners are entitled to get appropriate compensation as per the Rules and for which purposes, he has also ordered for further proceedings. When such being the findings rendered by the District Collector, I do not think that the petitioners can be justified in challenging the said order, as they are, otherwise will be compensated by paying the appropriate compensation as per the Rules.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not objecting to the drawal of power line but their contention is that such drawal can be done through an alternative route. I do not think that the petitioners can impose such condition on the respondents, more particularly, 70 towers have already been installed and only two remain to be erected.
5. Needless to say that the feasibility of the drawal of the power line is a technical aspect, which the respondents alone are entitled to say as to whether the proposal submitted by the petitioners is viable or feasible, while considering the technical aspect of the project. In this case, as the very drawal of the power line through 70 towers have already been completed, I do not think that the petitioners are justified in asking the respondents to draw the remaining power line through the alternative route. I do not find merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation as per the Rules and take appropriate steps to pay the same without loss of further time. Such exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.11.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index:Yes/No Note:Issue order copy on 23.11.2017. vri To
1. The District Collector, Tirupur.
2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mannarpuram, Trichy 620 020.
4. The Superintendent Engineer, Kovai Electricity General Construction Circle, Tatabad, Coimbatore 641 012.
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
vri W.P.No.40183 of 2016 21.11.2017