W.P.No.8904 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.03.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.8904 of 2025 1. VARADHAN 2. S.VIMALAN ... Petitioners Vs 1. TAMIL NADU TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (TANTRANSCO), REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ( TRANSMISSION) TANTRANSCO, TANTRANSCO BUILDING, NO.144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to determine and pay the amount of compensation towards (1) damages caused by the Authorities during erection of three HT Towers and lines (2) 200 % of land value for Tower base area (between four legs) of HT Towers and (3) 30% of land value for its diminution value in the width of Right of Way (RoW) due to laying of transmission line together with interest from date of erection 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8904 of 2025 pertaining to the petitioners' land situate in Pazhanthandalam Village, Kundrathur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, comprised in S.Nos.185/1B and 185/1C in an extent of 4.64 acres, based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2022 and remainder representation dated 27.01.2025 sent to the respondents 1 and 3. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.R.Arunkumar For R3 : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan Special Government Pleader ORDER This writ petition is filed with a prayer to determine and pay the amount of compensation for damages caused by the authorities during the erection of three HT towers and lines on the petitioner’s land, comprised in S.Nos.185/1B and 185/1C in an extent of 4.64 acres, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 28.03.2022. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated dated 15.03.2010. When the petitioners visited the property in the year 2022, they found that the first respondent had erected three HT towers and lines through the said land. No compensation has been 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8904 of 2025 paid and therefore, the present writ petition. 3. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents would submitt that the towers in question were erected in the year 2008 and the lines were drawn even as of the year 2008 itself. The compensation, if any, could have been claimed only by the then vendor. The petitioners, being a subsequent purchasers, is now belatedly making the claim. 3. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the lines seem to have been drawn only in the year 2022. 4. I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material records of the case. 5. As per Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the telegraph authority, which in this case is the first respondent, is liable to pay compensation before entering any person’s land and erecting towers. Therefore, if they had entered the petitioner’s land without paying compensation, such compensation could have been claimed at that time. Even 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8904 of 2025 otherwise, in this case, the petitioner is only a subsequent purchaser in the year 2010 and it has been authoritatively stated by the first respondent that the towers were erected in the year 2008. As far as the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, even though paragraph No. 4 states that when the petitioners visited the land in 2022, they learned about the erection of the three HT towers, there is no categorical averment in the affidavit stating that the towers were erected only after the petitioners purchased the land. 6. In that view of the matter, I am unable to reject the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents that the towers were erected in the year 2008. If that be so, even If there was any damage from the erection of the towers, the vendor of the petitioners ought to have claimed compensation in the year 2008. Having not claimed, belatedly now, I am unable to countenance the claim made by the petitioners. 7. In view thereof, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted and the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 20.03.2025 1/2 Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8904 of 2025 To 1. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED (TANTRANSCO), NO.144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ( TRANSMISSION) TANTRANSCO, TANTRANSCO BUILDING, NO.144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-600 002. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.8904 of 2025 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. nsl W.P.No.8904 of 2025 20.03.2025 1/2 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis