Madras High Court
M. Selvaraj vs The State Represented By on 24 February, 2026
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
WP No. 2438 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
WP No. 2438 of 2026
and WMP Nos.2685 and 2687 of 2026
1. M. Selvaraj
S/o. Marappagounder,
Kollampulithottam,
E. Varappalayam,Emmampundi,
Nambiyur Taluk,Erode.
2. K. Eswarmoorthy
S/o. Periyakaruppangounder,
Kollampulithottam,
E. Varappalayam,Emmampundi,
Nambiyur Taluk,Erode.
3. S. Venkutuswamy
S/o. Sonniappagounder,
Kollampulithottam,
E. Varappalayam,Emmampundi,
Nambiyur Taluk,Erode.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Represented By.,
Principles Secretary to Government,
Department of Energy,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. Managing Director,
No.144, TANTRANSCO Building,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
3. The Chief Engineer (Civil Transmission)
No.144, TANTRANSCO Building,
Anna Salai,Chennai-600 002.
__________
Page1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
4. The Superintending Engineer /GCC
Pothukattumana Vattam,
TANGEDCO,
Tatabad, Coimbatore -641 012.
5. The District Collector,
Erode -638 011.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent to
consider the petitioners objection dated 18.09.2025, consequently to forbear the
Respondents No.1 to 4 from erecting High Tension Electricity Tower in the
petitioners agricultural land situated in Survey Field No.573 In Patta No.1198
Emmampatti Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.U.Pressanna
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General,
Assisted by
Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar
ORDER
The above writ petition is filed for a mandamus directing the second
respondent to consider the petitioners’ objections dated 18.09.2025 and
consequently to forbear the respondents 1 to 4 from erecting High Tension
Electricity Tower in the petitioners’ agricultural land situated in Survey Field
No.573, in patta No.1198, Emmampatti Village, Nambiyur Taluk, Erode
District.
__________
Page2 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
2.The petitioners would submit that the lands in question are their
ancestral properties and the petitioners who are brothers are joint owners of the
said land and they have been cultivating crops thereon and they have been in
continuous possession of the same. Their livelihood is dependant on these lands.
In the year 1981, two high tension electric towers were erected in their lands by
the respondents’ board for carrying 250 KW of power and the cable is passing
right in the middle of the land from East to West. This has caused excess
hardship to the petitioner for cultivating crops and in carrying out their
agricultural activities and since the overhead lines are running through their
land, their agricultural activities are restricted.
2.1.While so, without any prior notice, the respondents board officials
unauthorisedly entered their lands and started measuring it and when questions
were raised, they were informed that such measurements were part of the
process of constructing a new 110 KW high tension electricity tower and line
once again through their property. The petitioners would submit that the
construction of these towers would ring a death knell to their agricultural
operations and they would be forced to stop their agricultural activities and if
their agricultural activities are stopped, they would be declared as defaulters as
they have taken loans from banks to carry on their agricultural operations.
2.2.The petitioners would submit that to add to their hardship, two acres
__________
Page3 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
had been acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishing
Athikadavu-Avinashi Water Supply Project and it was only the remaining lands
that is in the enjoyment of the petitioners. The petitioners would further submit
that as per the original plan, the tower was not intended to pass through their
land, but only through the government lands that is adjacent to their property and
it is well open to the respondent to stick to the original plan. Further, the
respondents board had not followed due process by issuing proper notice prior to
approving or commencing the project. If they had issued notice, the petitioner
would have submitted their objections. Therefore, the action of the respondents
board is arbitrary.
2.3.The petitioners had therefore, made an objection by way of
representation dated 13.08.2025 to the second respondent. Till date, there is no
response for the same and the respondents are continuing with their work to
erect the high tension towers as per the schedule. This prompted the petitioners
to sent yet another objection on 18.09.2025 to the fourth respondent. Despite
receiving the objections / representation, the fourth respondent did not respond
to the same. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
3.The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending
that the Government of Tamil Nadu had permitted the fourth respondent as per
Section 68 and 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for executing 11 schemes
__________
Page4 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
throughout the State and one of the schemes is the erection of 110 KV DC line
on DC tower for making LILO of the existing Karuvallur – Nambiyur feeder at
Malayampalayam 110/33-11 kV Substation. They would contend that they are
the deemed transmission lincensee envisaged under Sections 39 and 40 of the
Electricity Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’). The State has also
conferred upon the fourth respondent the powers which the telegraph authority
possess under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, under the Section 164 of the
Electricity Act. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act empowers the
respondents to place and maintain telegraph lines under, over, along, or across,
and posts in or upon, any immovable property and cause as little damage as
possible. For exercising this right, the respondent need not acquire any right over
the property other than that of use the property for placing the transmission lines
or posts or towers.
3.1.The fourth respondent would contend that the tower positions are
finalized upon techno-economic consideration and while optimizing the
transmission line project, the respondent is bound to take care of the permanent
features like roads, power lines, railway lines, communication lines, dwelling
units and statutory clearances as per Central Electricity Authority (measures
relating to safety and electric supply) Regulations, 2010. These regulations have
to be strictly adhered to. The Electricity Board further provides that no
injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court or authority in respect of any
__________
Page5 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
action taken in pursuance of any power conferred under the Act.
3.2.The fourth respondent would submit that under Section 10 of the Act,
notice or consent of the owner or occupier is not required for erection of towers.
Further, the respondent had issued a public notice in daily newspapers in both
the languages namely Tamil and English on 28.03.2025 calling for objections.
No objections was received by the respondents. Thereafter, by proceedings dated
02.05.2024, the Chief Engineer, Transmission/TANTRANSCO accorded
approval to the line route map. As no acquisition of land has been done and it
was only erection of the high tension towers and therefore, approval was granted
for the line alignment only the villages through which the line is proposed to be
held. Before the implementation of the scheme, a detailed study had been
conducted to identify the routes through which the line should be drawn and it is
only thereafter, that the public notice had came to be issued.
3.3.The fourth respondent would submit that the EHT line runs in a
straight line with the towers spaced at approximately 250 metres. Residential
and other buildings, wells, pathways are avoided leaving sufficient clearance to
the structures as provided in the Act. The farmers can very well continue their
agricultural activities under the line corridor and it is only growing of tall trees
gets curtailed. That apart, the lands are not acquired from the owners. With
reference to the diminution in land value, the owners are entitled for payment of
__________
Page6 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
compensation.
3.4.The fourth respondent would further submit that the conductors are 8
metres above from the ground level and it will not affect the agricultural
activities. The respondent would further submit that the work is underway and
some of the towers have been already erected. The respondent would submit that
there is no requirement of seeking permission in writing from the District
Magistrate as provided in the Works of Licensee Rules, 2006, as the same is
excluded under Sub-Rule 4 when approval is conferred under Section 164 of
Electricity Act, 2003. Therefore, they would submit that they have right to erect
towers and they have not flouted any of the rules and they seek for the dismissal
of the writ petition.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
5.The only argument that has been canvassed by the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that as per Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the
respondents 1 and 2 require permission to enter upon the property of the
individual for erecting high tension tower or for any further work from the
District Collector cum District Magistrate. Such a permission has not been
obtained by the respondents herein. He would further submit that earlier the line
__________
Page7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
has already got across the property and by the present action, the petitioners
would loose large tracts of their lands. He would rely upon the judgment of this
Court reported in 2012 (1) CTC 504 made in the case of R.Santhana Raj and
others vs. The Chief Engineer, Non-Conventional Energy Source, Anna Salai,
Chennai and others, wherein, he would rely upon the paragraph 58 (vii),
wherein, the learned Judge had observed that the right of the owner or occupier
to resist or obstruct any act undertaken under Section 10 is indirectly recognised
in Section 16(1), which requires the permission from the District Magistrate.
6.Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents
would submit that by reason of Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph
Act, no prior permission is required and the aggrieved party is permitted to claim
compensation under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act. He would rely upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC
143 made in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Vs. Century
Textiles and Industries Limited and others and the judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1178 of 2021 by an order dated
19.04.2021. The learned Attorney General would submit that the route has been
fixed only after undertaking a detailed study and the petitioner is entitled to
compensation alone.
7. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 2003, would read as follows:
__________
Page8 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026“10.Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain
telegraph lines and posts.-The telegraph authority may, from
time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over,
along, or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable
property: Provided that-
(a)the telegraph authority shall not exercise the powers
conferred by this section except for the purposes of a telegraph
established or maintained by the 1 [Central Government], or to
be so established or maintained;
(b)the [Central Government] shall not acquire any right
other than that of user only in the property under, over, across,
in or upon which the telegraph authority places any telegraph
line or post; and
(c)except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority
shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property
vested in or under the control or management of any local
authority, without the permission of that authority; and
(d)in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section,
the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible,
and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any
property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full
compensation to all persons interested for any damage
sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.”
8. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 2003, would read as follows:
“16.Exercise of powers conferred by Section 10, and
disputes as to compensation, in case of property other
than that of a local authority.-
(1)If the exercise of the powers mentioned in Section 10
in respect of property referred to in clause (d) of that
section is resisted or obstructed, the District Magistrate
may, in his discretion, order that the telegraph authority
shall be permitted to exercise them.
(2)If, after the making of an order under sub-section(1),
any person resists the exercise of those powers, or, having
control over the property, does not give all facilities for
their being exercised, he shall be deemed to have
committed an offence under Section 188 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
(3)If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the
compensation to be paid under Section 10 clause (d), it
__________
Page9 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026shall, on application for that purpose by either of the
disputing parties to the District Judge within whose
jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.
(4)If any dispute arises as to the persons entitled to
receive compensation, or as to the proportions in which
the persons interested are entitled to share in it, the
telegraph authority may pay into the court of the District
Judge such amount as he deems sufficient or, where all
the disputing parties have in writing admitted the amount
tendered to be sufficient or the amount has been
determined under sub-section (3), that amount; and the
District Judge, after giving notice to the parties and
hearing such of them as desire to be heard, shall
determine the persons entitled to receive the
compensation or, as the case may be, the proportions in
which the persons interested are entitled to share in it.
(5)Every determination of a dispute by a District Judge
under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) shall be final:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect the
right of any person to recover by suit the whole or any
part of any compensation paid by the telegraph authority,
from the person who has received the same”Therefore, Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 2003, confers powers
on the respondent to place and maintain telegraphic lines and posts, for which,
they do not requires any prior permission.
9.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement made in the case of Power
Grid, supra, had observed as follows:
“21.It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under
the aforesaid provision, the appropriate Government has
conferred the powers of telegraph authority vide
Notification dated 24.12.2003 exercisable under the
Telegraph Act, 1885, upon the Power Grid. It may also be
mentioned that a Central transmission utility (CTU) is a
deemed licensee under the second proviso to Section 14 of
__________
Page10 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026the Electricity Act, 2003. Power Grid is a Central
transmission utility and is, therefore, a deemed licensee
under the Electricity Act, 2003. This coupled with the fact
that Power Grid is treated as authority under the Telegraph
Act, 1885, it acquires all such powers which are vested in a
telegraph authority under the provisions of the Telegraph
Act, 1885 including power to eliminate any obstruction in
the laying down of power transmission lines. As per the
provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885, unobstructed access
to lay down telegraph and/or electricity transmission lines in
an imperative in the larger public interest. Electrification of
villages all over the country and availability of telegraph
lines are the most essential requirements for growth and
development of any country, economy and the
well-being/progress of the citizens. The legislature has not
permitted any kind of impediment/obstruction in achieving
this objective and through the scheme of the Telegraph Act,
1885, empowering the licensee to lay telegraph lines,
applied to the same, as it is, for laying down the electricity
transmission lines.”
10.Further, Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 2003, clearly
stipulates the Central Government acquires right only to use the property for
placing telegraph lines or posts. Further, Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act,
2003, provides that in exercising of powers conferred under Section 10 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 2003, if there is any obstructions or resistance, then the
District Magistrate, in his discretion, order that the authority shall be permitted
to continue their work.
11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had in the case of Power Grid,
supra, observed as follows:
“23.Section 10 of the Telegraph Act, 1885,
__________
Page11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026empowers the telegraph authority to place and
maintain a telegraph line, under, over, along or across
and posts in or upon any immovable property. The
provision of Section 10 (b) of the Telegraph Act, 1885
makes it abundantly clear that while acquiring the
power to lay down the telegraph lines, the Central
Government does not acquire any right other than that
of user in the property. Further, Section 10(d) of the
Telegraph Act, 1885, obliges the telegraph authority to
ensure that it causes a little damage as possible and
that the telegraph authority shall also be obliged to pay
full compensation to all persons interested for any
damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of
the powers.”
12.The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Ponnusamy and Ors. Vs. The Union of India and Ors.
wherein, it has observed as follows:
“9. On the scope and applicability of Sections 10 and 16 of
the Indian Telegraph Act, the Division Bench of this Court after
taking note of the earlier decisions rendered, has held as follows:-
“9. We do not wish to reproduce various judgments
on the interpretation of the provisions governing. They
have been dealt with in extenso by this Court and the
Apex Court in numerous cases. Suffice it to refer to the
recent judgment of the Apex Court in Power Grid
Corporation (India) Limited Vs. Century Textiles and
Industries Limited and Others ((2017) 5 SCC 143),
wherein it has been held as under:
“23. Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
empowers the Telegraph Authority place and maintain
a telegraph line under, over, along or across and posts
in or upon any immovable property. The provision of
Section 10(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 makes
it abundantly clear that while acquiring the power to
laydown telegraph lines, the Central Government does
not acquire any right other than that of user in the
__________
Page12 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026property. Further, Section 10(d) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 obliges the Telegraph Authority to
ensure that it causes as little damage as possible and
that the Telegraph Authority shall also be obliged to
pay full compensation to all person interested for any
damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of
those powers.”Thus, Section 10 of the Act confers powers to the
second respondent to place and maintain telegraphic
lines and posts. We have no difficulty in holding that
there is an adequate authorisation given to the second
respondent by the Government of India in exercise of
power under Section 164 of The Electricity Act, 2003 by
the order dated 24.12.2003.
10. On the scope of Section 16 of the Act visa- vis
Section 10, the Division Bench of this Court in
(ii)C.Ram Prakash and Another Vs. Power Grid
Corporation (India) Limited and Others (2011-4
L.W.924) in which one of us (MMSJ) is a party and
author has held as follows:
“22. Scope of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885:The power under Section 10 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is rather wide and
extensive. While exercising the power, it is not
necessary for the Respondent No. 1 to put the
individuals, who owned the land on notice. Admittedly,
he Respondent No. 1has got power under Sections 10
and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Such a power
has been conferred upon the Respondent No. 1 in public
interest. The exercise of the said power by erecting the
towers with overhead lines would not amount to an
acquisition. It is true that such an action would
diminish the value of the property of an individual, but
at the same time it cannot be termed as an acquisition.
Since Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
provides mechanism of compensation,the Appellants
can have no grievance.
23. Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act provides
for a mechanism by which the Respondent No. 1 can
__________
Page13 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026approach the second Respondent, if there is an
obstruction or resistance. It is not necessary that in
each and every case the Respondent No. 1 will have to
approach the second Respondent whenever there is an
objection. The word objection has got a different
connotation than the words resistance or obstruction. A
resistance or obstruction would mean preventing the
statutory body from carrying out the public duty.
Whereas an objection is merely a form of protest.
Further, under Section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act,
the Respondent No. 2 has got no power to go into the
merits of the case and find out as to whether the
alignment proposed is correct or not and there is
anypossibility of realignment. The prescription of
Section16 of the Indian Telegraph Act is very specific to
provide aid to the Respondent No. 1to perform its
statutory duty. Considering the scope of Section 10 of
the Indian Telegraph Act vis-a-vis Section 16 of the
Indian Telegraph Act, it has been held by the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court in Scindia Potteries v.
Purolator India Ltd.MANU/DE/0189/1980 : AIR 1980
Delhi 157 as follows:9… The exercise of power under
Section 10 is not conditional on compliance with the
provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act. The power given
under Section 10 is absolute. It is only when there is a
resistance or obstruction in the exercise of that power
that the occasion to approach the District Magistrate
arises. If there is no resistance or obstruction, there is
no occasion for the telegraph authority to approach the
District Magistrate. The alleged oral protest relied
upon by the Appellant appears to us to be a made up
story. Two telegraph poles were affixed on the
Appellants’ property in February, 1974. The telephone
lines and connections were thereafter given from time
to time. Till the landlord-tenant dispute arose between
the Appellant and M/S. Purolator India Ltd., no
objection was raised by the Appellant. No doubt in
April, 1978 the Appellant gave notice to the telegraph
authority under Sections 17 and 19A of the Act and may
be that the telephone connections in May, 1978 can be
treated as the ones objected to but then Sections 17 and
19A have a different purport. The resistance and
obstruction envisaged by Section 16(1) of the Act is
__________
Page14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026
different. This will be clear on a reading of Sub-section
(1) of Section 16 of the Act. It is for the purpose of
Section 188 I.P.C. that an application is to be given
under Section16(1) of the Act to the District Magistrate.
Section 188, I.P.C. makes the disobedience of an
orderduly promulgated by the public servant an
offence. Section 16 is really in aid of the discharge of
statutory duty and exercise of statutory power
postulated by Section 10.We are in respectful
agreement with the ratio laid down therein.”
11. Thus, in view of the same, nothing more is to be
stated. In fact, we have also called the officer
concerned and perused the records. We also permitted
the learned counsel for the appellants to do so. The
officer has also explained the procedure which we have
recorded supra. We do not find any malice in law or
fact. The second respondent is carrying out its statutory
duty. Now the entire project is over insofar as the
appellants are concerned. We may note that two of the
writ petitioners also joined the other in filing the writ
petitions after receiving compensation, which cannot be
appreciated. Similarly, one of the appellants has also
received the compensation amount. It is the appellants
who approached the first respondent and for the
reasons known, they did not appear for hearing. They
have asked for numerous documents, which is for the
purpose of dragging on the proceedings. Order under
Section 16(1) of the Act was passed not only on the
request of the appellants but also that of the second
respondent. The role available to first respondent is
rather limited. It is neither a supervisory nor an
adjudicating authority over the second respondent.
When the element of expertise is involved and the same
is undertaken by the statutory body as per law, the
power of judicial review will have to be entertained
with extreme caution. We cannot interfere with the
matter on some apprehension expressed by the
appellants. ..…”
10. Thus, nothing more is required to be considered in
this regard.
11. The appellants themselves tacitly acknowledged in the
__________
Page15 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026subsequent representations that they did refuse to receive the
notices issued. We have already reiterated the view taken in the
earlier round of litigation touching upon the very same project on
the question of law involved as upheld by the Apex Court.
Therefore, we do not wish to undertake to re-do the said exercise.
The question of compensation is the issue, which has to be dealt
with separately. The views expressed by the learned Attorney
General (as he then was) do not deal with the provisions of the
enactment and it is nobody’s case that the appellants are not
going to get adequate compensation. We find overwhelmingly the
public interest involved in giving effect to the project which has
already been delayed by the present proceedings. However, we
record the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents that adequate compensation would
be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of completion
of work in tune with the impugned order passed.”
13.The judgment relied upon by the petitioners is prior to the judgment
made in the case of Power Grid, supra. Pursuant to the judgment in Power Grid,
supra, the Tamil Nadu Government had issued G.O(Ms) No.63 dated
22.11.2017, Energy (A1) Department, wherein, it is informed that the
Government of India, Ministry of Power has formulated the various guidelines
regarding payment of compensation for damages in regard to Right to Way for
Transmission Lines as stipulated under Sections 67 and 68 of the Act r/w
Sections 10 and 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, and that the present land owners
were entitled to compensation for damages under the Act. Further, the
Government had issued G.O(Ms) No.86 dated 30.10.2019, Energy (A1)
Department, through which, the government had issued a list of directions.
Therefore, in the light of the judgment made in Power Grid, supra, and the
aforesaid government orders, the claim of the petitioners cannot be sustained.
__________
Page16 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners
to make an application before the District Collector for compensation.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. No costs.
24-02-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ssa__________
Page17 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )
WP No. 2438 of 2026P.T.ASHA, J.
ssa
To
1.Principle Secretary to Government,
The State ,Department of Energy,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.Managing Director,
No.144, TANTRANSCO Building,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
3.The Chief Engineer (Civil Transmission)
No.144, TANTRANSCO Building,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002
4.The Superintending Engineer /GCC
Pothukattumana Vattam,
TANGEDCO,
Tatabad, Coimbatore -641 012.
5.The District Collector,
Erode -638 011.
WP No. 2438 of 2026
24-02-2026
__________
Page18 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 07:37:21 pm )