Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a landowner, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the entire extent of land utilized for shifting a high-tension electric tower in S.No.47/5B1, measuring 4.90 Ares, at Thamaraipatti Bit – II Village, Madurai East Taluk and Madurai District. The grievance arose when National Highways acquired lands for a project, and the high-tension electric tower was allegedly shifted inside the petitioner’s property. The petitioner claimed that the acquisition authority shifted the onus of compensation onto the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO), the fourth respondent. The petitioner sought compensation for the lost land based on a representation dated 21.05.2024. The fourth respondent's standing counsel submitted that the representation would be considered on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks, and conceded that any compensation payable would be the liability of the second and third respondents (the Special District Revenue Officer and the Project Director of National Highways) and not the fourth respondent. The court, finding no dispute that the representation would be considered, disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating on the merits of the claim for compensation. The court directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 21.05.2024 on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. The court did not determine the entitlement to compensation or the quantum thereof.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for land utilized for shifting a high-tension electric tower
Final Decision
Writ Petition disposed of, directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2024 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks. It was noted that any compensation payable shall be by the second and third respondents, not the fourth respondent.
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 285
Mr.H.Arumugam for petitioner; Mr.S.Kameswaran, Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2; Mr.P.Karthick for third respondent; Mr.S.Deenadhayalan for fourth respondent
1. The District Collector, Madurai; 2. The Special District Revenue Office, (Land Acquisition National Highways), Madurai; 3. The Project Director, Department of National Highways, Madurai; 4. The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle, Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO), Madurai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks compensation for land utilized for shifting a high-tension electric tower
Filing Reason
The high-tension electric tower was shifted into the petitioner's property during acquisition, and compensation was not paid
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the land utilized for shifting the high-tension electric tower
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Claimed compensation for land utilized for shifting high-tension electric tower, contending that National Highways shifted onus to TANTRANSCO.
Fourth Respondent (TANTRANSCO): Undertook to consider representation within eight weeks and submitted that compensation liability lies with second and third respondents (National Highways).
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, seeking compensation for the entire extent of land that has been utilised for shifting high tension electric tower in S.No.47/5B1 measuring 4.90 Ares at Thamaraipatti Bit – II Village, Madurai East Taluk and Madurai District.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in the process of acquiring lands, the high tension electric tower has been shifted inside the petitioner's property.
It is fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsel that in the event of the petitioner being entitled to any compensation, the same shall be payable only by the second and third respondents and not by the fourth respondent.
directing the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.05.2024, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition directly; no previous proceedings are recorded.
