A.R.A.S. Duraisamy Nadar vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Notice of motion was ordered by this Hon''ble Court on this Second Appeal by learned Judge of this Court. After completion of service the

Second Appeal is listed before me. Heard Mr. N. Krishnaveni learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. V. Rengapashyam learned

Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

The suit is filed for a declaration that the Plaintiff is having access to the road on the east of the first schedule property from every point of his

property as well as a right to frontage to this entire length and for a consequential injunction restraining the Electricity Board from installing a

transformer. The suit was dismissed on merits and the Appeal filed by the Plaintiff was also dismissed on merits.

The Plaintiff has a house on the West of North-South National Highway. There is a vacant land between the margin of the road and the Plaintiffs

property. The Plan produced before the Court is also produced before me. The vacant land available between the Plaintiffs house and the margin

of the road belongs to the High Way Department. In other words, the Plaintiff has no claim over that vacant land. In that vacant land transformer

had been put up by the Electricity Board. The Courts below on appreciating the materials found that the plaintiff is not entitled to have the relief

prayed for. u/s 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, the Board has got the power for placing any wire, poles etc. for distribution of electricity not

withstanding anything contained u/s 12 to 16, 18 and 19 of the Indian Electricity Act. In so doing the Board is authorised to exercise all the powers

which the Telegraph Authority possess under Part 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1985. Reading the provisions given above together, it is clear that

the board''s power to install a transformer in respect of a private land is absolute and subject to in so doing they do not cause any damage to the

property concerned, and even if damage is likely to be caused to that property, the land owner is only entitled to a compensation. But that is not

the situation here since the transformer had been installed in the property belonging to the High Ways Department. Installing a transformer is only in

the interest of public. On going through the materials available, I am unable to find that the access of the plaintiff to the property is in any way

obstructed to or curtailed by the installation of the transformer as indicated in the Plan. If the case of the plaintiff that the owner of the property has

absolute right to have access to the Highway from every point of the property is accepted, than in that situation, no transformer comes to be

installed since necessarily a transformer conies to be installed in front the property belonging to one or other of the individual.

Therefore I find that this Courts below have not admitted any error at all in dismissing the suit concurrently. Consequently I find that there are no

question of law that arise for consideration in this second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.