BRINDAVAN FARMS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring about 70 acres in Thiruneermalai Village, Tambaram Taluk. In co-ordination with the TamilNadu Industrial Corporation (TIDCO), he intends to construct and develop an International Health City in that land. While so, during the last week of June, 2018, when he came to know that the second respondent entered into his land and marked certain area of his land to install high tension wire jumbo towers, he gave a representation on 09/07/2018 to the respondents communicating his objection for erecting high tension wire over his land. The second respondent refused to receive his representation. Hence, he filed a writ petition in W.P.18805/2018 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the 2nd respondent from installing high tension wire towers in his land. This Court in the said writ petition, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass order within a period of 4 weeks. Till the passing of order, status quo was ordered.

(2.) The first respondent conducted enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 09.07.2018 on 15/10/2018 and 27/11/2018. Pointing out that the petitioner has a proposal to establish an International Health City in the said land and this project will be affected if high tension towers erected disturbing 4 acres of the land. The petitioner requested the first respondent to direct the second respondent to lay underground cable to avoid inconvenience and waste of land. He also offered to bear the additional cost for laying underground cable or in alternative, the route of high tension tower line shall be changed to an alternate route which will cause lesser damage to the petitioner property.

(3.) During the enquiry the second respondent proposed an alternate route . The petitioner on verification found that the alternate route may not disturb in higher magnitude as before. Therefore, he was contemplating to accept the alternate route suggested by the second respondent. When the first respondent summoned the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 23/09/2019, the petitioner informed the first respondent through a letter dated 21/09/2019 that he is not well and not able to attend the enquiry, however, he is ready to accept the alternate route proposed by the second respondent. The first respondent, on 24/09/2019 has passed the order granting permission to enter upon the land of the petitioner overruling the objections raised by the petitioner. The said order is impugned in this writ petition.