PARVATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.D2/18476/2018, dated 27.11.2018 and consequently to direct the respondents to install the Electric Tower in Survey No.648/3C and not to interfere with the petitioner's land in Survey No.648/3B2, situated at Kayathar Village, Kayathar Taluk, Tuticorin District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the said property was enjoyed by the petitioner and her family members. The Government proposed to install a 400 kilowatt sub-station of high power electric line at Thennampatti Village, from which the electric lines are being taken over to Kayathar 400 kilowatt sub-station for which the second respondent planned to install 76 electric tower. Since the second respondent, without giving notice to the petitioner, is trying to install the electric tower in the petitioner's land, the petitioner's husband's brother made a representation before the first respondent on 27.06.2018. While so, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner's husband's brother and one Bose, who is the adjacent land owner, for conducting an enquiry on 23.08.2018 and the second notice was issued on 22.10.2010 to the petitioner and her sons. The first respondent enquired the petitioner's sons. In the mean time, the first respondent passed the impugned order, dated 27.11.2018. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the electrical lines, which is going through the petitioner's property, affect the right of the petitioner, as it is a family property and apart from that, the learned counsel contended that if the concerned respondent is taking the electric line through another survey number, the petitioner's property would be spared for the family, as they eke out their livelihood by doing agricultural activities in their land. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the second respondent has not sought permission for erecting electrical towers in her lands, which is against the statute and prays to set aside the impugned order.