V.KALAIVANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHY DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) eard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) The petitioners allege that the respondents are attempting to erect "High Tension Towers" in their residential lands. The respondents took the stand that they are only using an existing electric pathway and that nothing new is being done. The learned Standing counsel would claim that they are converting the existing line to new line. Since the stand of the respondent is questioned by the petitioners, this Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner conducted inspection and filed a report before this Court. Paragraph 4 of the said report reads as under:-

(3.) I am satisfied that the stand taken by the petitioners is substantiated. It is of course true that the respondents are carrying out public project. They can not proceed in the manner therein, without getting consent from the land owner concerned. If the land owners resist or obstruct, it is the District Collector, who can order that the respondents can proceed for execution of the project. In this case, the petitioners have clearly offered their resistance and obstructions. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 have to necessarily move the first respondent with a proper application. On such application being filed, the first respondent will decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before passing final order, the first respondent will hear the petitioners herein. Till the first respondent passes final order under Section 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act , 1885, the impugned works shall be put on hold. I have already made it clear that the first respondent will not pass any final order without hearing the writ petitioners herein.