SHASHI DEVI DHANUKA Vs. CHIEF MANAGER GUDUVANCHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) 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.