R.Gnanabaranam v. Ramkumar

JUDGMENT [Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.] This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judge in W.P(MD)No.14292 of 2011 by order dated 19.04.2013.

¶2The first respondent in this appeal filed the said writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent, who was Assistant Engineer [O&M] at Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Nagaram, Kulasaekaram, Kanyakumari District to re-shift the electric post to the original places on the western side of the road situated at Resurvey No. 119/A, Thumbacode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶3During the pendency of the writ petition, the present appellant as a third party had filed M.P(MD)No.3 of 2012 to get impleaded. However, he was not impleaded but shown as a petitioner in M.P(MD)No.3 of 2012 in the order dated 19.04.2013 whereby, the Page No. 2 of 7 learned Judge given a direction directing the respondent TANGEDCO to find out the place on which the electric pole in question is situate with the assistance of the revenue officials and if it in Survey No.199/9A, the respondent should consider the representation made by the writ petitioner, further, the respondent should also consider the order of injunction passed in original suit in O.S.No.184 of 2011, that was filed by the present appellant.

¶4Aggrieved over the said order passed by the learned Judge, the petitioner in M.P(MD)No.3 of 2012 preferred this appeal.

5.Heard the learned counsel respectively appearing for the parties.

¶6During the last hearing we wanted the TANGEDCO through his Standing counsel to get instruction as to exactly in which survey number the disputed electric pole is erected and if it is still in existence, what is the proposal of the TANGEDCO to shift it in which survey number. Page No. 3 of 7

¶7In response to the said order passed by this Court during last hearing, Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent has produced a written instruction that has been given by way of communication by the Tahsildar, Kalkulam to the TANGEDCO where he has stated the following: "ghh;itapy;

tl;lrhh;

Ma;thsh; mwpf;ifapd;go Jk;gnfhL fpuhkk; g[y vz; 119y; tHf;F eilbgWtjhy; g[y vz; 119-6 g[wk;nghf;F nuhL bry;tjhft[k; nkw;go nuhL hPrh;ntgo 2/0kP mfyk; cs;sjhft[k; jw;nghJ g{kpapy; 4/8kPl;lh; tPjpapy; nuhL bry;tjhft[k; Twpa[s;shh;/ 119-6y; bry;Yk; bjd;tly; nuhl;od; fpHf;F gf;fk; kpd;fk;g';fs; elg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k; kpd;fk;g';fs; elg;gl;Ls;s ,lk; 119-9A7D y; tUtjhFk;/ nkw;go g[y vz; 119-9A7D gl;lh epyk; vd;Wk; jdJ mwpf;ifapy; rhh; Ma;thsh; (epy msth;) Twpa[s;shh; vd;w tpguj;jpid bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ xk;- tl;lhl;rpah; fy;Fsk;/""

¶8Relying upon this communication of the Tahsildar concerned, the learned Standing counsel for TANGEDCO would submit that insofar as the two poles, which are existing now, are located in Survey No. 119/9A7D, which belongs to the first respondent. Page No. 4 of 7

¶9If at all the pole has to be shifted on the other side of the road concerned, it would be shifted to Survey No.196 which belongs to the local body as a public road and therefore, there was no proposal on the part of the TANGEDCO to shift the pole from the existing area to the land belongs to the appellant, ie., Survey No.119/4A.

¶10The said stand taken by the TANGEDCO is taken on record. In this context, Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that insofar as the property belongs to the appellant in Survey No.119/4A is concerned, the TANGEDCO should not be permitted to shift their poles and erect in that land or even if they erect the poles on the other side of the road, which, according to the TANGEDCO is in Survey No.196 between two poles, if the TANGEDCO wants to draw the line, the line also should not take across the land or property belongs to the appellant at Survey No.119/4A.

¶11This apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant also has been met out by the learned Standing counsel Page No. 5 of 7 appearing for the TANGEDCO, who would submit that in turn, the poles would not be erected in Survey No.119/4A and the electrical line would not be drawn between two poles to be erected or shifted across the property belongs to the appellant situated at Survey No.119/4A.

¶12In view of the said stand taken by the TANGEDCO, the plea raised by the appellant in this appeal since has been redressed or the prayer has been accomplished by recording the aforestated stand of the TANGEDCO as well as the first respondent, this Court feel that this writ appeal can be disposed of by giving a quietus, accordingly, it is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[R.S.K.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

29.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No PJL To The Assistant Engineer, O&M/TNEB/Nagaram, Kulasekaram, Kanyakumari District. Page No. 6 of 7 W.A(MD)No.544oofo2013 R.SURESHoKUMAR,oJ. and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,oJ. PJL o W.A(MD)No.544oofo2013 and M.P(MD)No.1oofo2013

29.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.03.2023 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 R.Gnanabaranam .. Appellant Vs. 1.Ramkumar 2.The Assistant Engineer, O&M/TNEB/Nagaram, Kulasekaram, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order, dated 19.04.2013, made in W.P(MD)No.14292 of 2011. For Appellant : Mr.K.N.Thampi For Respondents : Mr.K.Seemaraj for R1 Page No. 1 of 7 Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel for R2