L.Narayana Reddy v. The Superintending Engineer
2025:MHC:1423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH and WMP No. 22851 of 2025 L.Narayana Reddy Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Superintending Engineer General Construction Circle TNEB Salem EDC, KN Colony Udayapatti TANGEDCO (Formerly TNEB) Salem- 636 014.
2.The Assistant Director Tower Line Construction, TNEB, Krishnagiri- 635 001.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Transmission Line Construction Krishnagiri- 635 001.
4.The Superintending Engineer TANGEDCO, Krishnagiri- 635 001.
Respondent(s) Page No.1 of 8
PRAYER Forbearing the respondents from erecting high voltage electricity transmission tower in front of and abutting the petitioner's land comprised in S.No.35/1A3 and 35/1A4A Motham Agraharam Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, affecting free ingress and egress.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Mani For Respondent(s):
Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from erecting a High Voltage Electricity Transmission Tower in front abutting the land belonging to the petitioner.
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 06.06.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are taking steps to erect a High Voltage Electricity Transmission Tower right in front of property belonging to the petitioner, thereby restricting the ingress and egress from the property belonging to the petitioner.
Page No.2 of 8
3. In view of the same, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents to take instructions. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent was placed before this Court. The 1st respondent has taken the following stand in the counter affidavit:
"8. I submit that with regards to para 3, there is no construction activity in the petitioner's land, the proposed Hosur-Zuzuvadi 110KV line profile is approved to maintain all the safety distance in S.No.35/1A3 and S.No.35/1A4A. The proposed tower has not been erected in the petitioner's land, no line is passing through the petitioner's land. The tower foundation is casted in the Govt land S.No.32 and the size of tower foundation is 2.1 x 2.1m. The petitioner land length is 79m, the proposed tower size is 2.1m. In this situation there is no hindrance to petitioner and maintaining all the safety measures.
9. I submit that with regards to para 4, the Page No.3 of 8
proposed Hosur-Zuzuvadi 110KV line, partially OH line partially UG cable. The proposed cable termination tower is located inbetween 4 Baniyan trees. In the UG cable portion we are not removing the existing Baniyan trees. In the OH portion we are trimming the Baniyan trees with required safety clearance. The OH line stringing portion is from Hosur 230 KV SS to cable termination tower. From this cable termination tower to Loc. 17 of another cable termination point the cable route is finalized and the length of cable manufacturing is completed. In this situation we could not change the tower locations. The tower foundation is now 12ft away from the petitioner land, If the tower is erected 20 to 30 ft away from petitioners land the tower and UG cable will fall on the middle of the road. Generally the UG cable laying work is erected at the end of the road for safety and maintenance purpose."
4. Heard Mr.P.Mani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.4 of 8
respondents.
5. The grievance expressed on the side of the petitioner was that the Tower is proposed to be put up right in front of the land belonging to the petitioner, thereby preventing the access of the petitioner to his property. However, upon carefully going through the counter affidavit, it is seen that the Tower foundation is almost 12 feet away from the property belonging to the petitioner.
6. If the Tower is taken away any further, it will virtually fall in middle of the road and it will became impossible for the respondents to proceed further with the work. Hence, this Court must only ensure that the access of the petitioner to his property is not prevented, since such right is available to the petitioner.
7. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents to ensure that access to the petitioner to his property is not in any way affected by erecting the Page No.5 of 8
High Voltage Electricity Transmission Tower and the assurance given in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent is strictly adhered.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 10-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Jeni To 1.The Superintending Engineer General Construction Circle Tneb Salem Edc,Kn Colony Udayapatti Tangedco (formerly Tneb) Salem- 636 2.The Assistant Director Tower Line Construction, Tneb, Krishnagiri- 635 001.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer Transmision Line Construction Page No.6 of 8
Krishnagiri- 635 001.
4.The Superintending Engineer Tangedco, Krishnagiri- 635 001.
Page No.7 of 8
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
Jeni 10-06-2025 Page No.8 of 8