Vivasaya Vizhipunarvu Iyakkam Eroad v. Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY 1.Vivasaya Vizhipunarvu Iyakkam, Erode, A Registered Society represented by its President V.Murugavel, S/o.Venkatasami Gounder, Having its place of registered office at Avalpoondurai, Erode-638 118.
2.Krishnan 3.Mariammal 4.Nagoor Maideen 5.Dharmaraj 6.Sundarayya 7.G.Selvi 8.O.M.S.Sheik Uthuman Alim Sahib 9.K.Murugesan 10.S.A.Sarfudeen 11.S.Murugiah 12.Duraipandi 13.Meivel 14.Chellappa 15.Cithirai 16.Krishnammal 17.Gopal 18.Shanmugaiah 1/7
19.Parvathi 20.Murugan 21.Lakshmanan 22.Marikannu 23.K.Murugesan 24.Abdul Kader 25.Syed Mohamed Ali 26.Karupaiammal 27.Velusamy 28.Thenraj 29.Amir Sulthan 30.Duraisamy 31.M.Mariappan 32.S.S.Moammed Ibrahim 33.Sheik Uduman Sahib 34.Muthammal 35.Kali Thevar 36.D.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioners vs 1.Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Represented by its Chairman, Having its place of office at B-9, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Salai, New Delhi-110 016.
2.The General Manager ( O & M) Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Southern Region Transmission System-II, H.Q.32, Race Court Road, Bangalore-560 001.
2/7
3.The Deputy General Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., 400 K.V.Sub-Station, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records in connection with the impugned order passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.P.No.59 of 2013 dated 23.04.2018 and quash the same and directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to pay a compensation of sum of Rs. 1,17,17,653/- to the farmers/members of the petitioner society with 18% interest per annum from the date of cutting trees till realization in their individual account.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.K.Kannan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Suresh for M/s.Aiyer and Dolia For R4 : Mr.A.K.Manikkam Special Government Pleader ***** 3/7
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed by Vivasaya Vizhipunarvu Iyakkam, Erode, which is a registered society seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Tirunelveli in O.P.No.59 of 2013 dated 23.04.2018 and for a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay a compensation of sum of Rs.1,17,17,653/- to the farmers/members of the petitioner society with 18% interest per annum from the date of cutting trees till realization in their individual account.
2. The first petitioner has filed a petition before the Additional District Judge-IV, Tirunelveli in O.P.No.59 of 2013 under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 16(3) of Indian Telegraphic Act, 1885 to direct the respondents therein to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,17,653/- to the petitioner with 18% interest per annum, from the date of cutting of coconut trees, till the date of realization, with cost. The learned IV Additional District Judge has decided the issue raised by the petitioner and held that the petitioner has not submitted any relevant records and hence, dismissed the said petition. The relevant portion of 4/7
the impugned order is extracted hereunder:- "14. To decide the sufficiency of the compensation already paid, the petitioner examined only its President, as the only witness. Not even a single coconut tree owner is examined. Revenue Officials or Agriculture Department authorities were also not examined, as a witness in this case. In this petition, nothing is mentioned that who are the aggrieved persons and for and on behalf of, how many persons this petition is filed and even how many coconut trees were cut by the respondents. It is not disclosed in the Original Petition that, how many coconut trees of a particular land owner were cut by the respondents. It is not stated in the petition that, how much enhanced compensation is entitled for each land owner.
To decide the dispute regarding the sufficiency of compensation, no proper material is furnished in this petition. The evidence adduced and the documents produced, in this case, are not sufficient to decide the dispute regarding the sufficiency of the compensation, by this Court, In deciding the sufficiency of the compensation already paid, this Court is not bound by any decision taken, in a meeting convened by the District Collector or the compensation amount determined, by the Joint Director of Agriculture. Without furnishing necessary particulars to decide the sufficiency of the compensation already paid, this petition is filed. Therefore, this petition is to be dismissed."
3. On perusing the reasons stated by the IV Additional District Judge, it is seen that the petitioner had filed the said petition in O.P.No.59 of 2013 without any relevant records. Moreover, the petitioner has filed Public Interest Litigation and hence the suit cannot be entertained.
5/7
4. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be sustained. Moreover, the present petition is filed by the Society and the Society cannot file the writ petition. However, liberty is granted to each land owners to agitate their issues before the appropriate authority for enhancement of compensation and the same shall be considered by the authorities as per law.
5. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 03.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes am To The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY, J am Order made in 03.08.2023 7/7