Holding

The Court held that the transmission line must be raised to provide a clearance of at least 40 ft (56 m) and that the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Summary

M/s. Ramakrishna Poultry Ltd., a poultry farmer, purchased land and erected sheds while the Power Grid Corporation was surveying a 400 kV transmission line that would pass over the sheds. The company claimed that the high‑voltage lines would harm its birds and sought a realignment or increased tower height. The Madras High Court directed the matter to the District Magistrate, who ordered a deviation, which was set aside by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court balanced the appellant’s grievance against the technical and public‑interest considerations, noting that the poultry farm was established after the line’s route was already being surveyed and that a deviation over a third party’s land was not feasible. The Court directed the corporation to raise the clearance of the line to 56 m (40 ft) and held that the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act, 1885.

Issues considered

Whether the District Magistrate/Collector can order deviation or alteration of a transmission line under Section 16 or Section 17 of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act for use of its land.
Whether technical feasibility and public interest justify raising tower height instead of realigning the line.
Whether the appellant had knowledge of the transmission line project and thus cannot claim exclusive rights over the land.
Whether the increased clearance of 40 ft satisfies the requirement of equity between individual grievance and public interest.

Legislation cited

Electricity Act, 2003s. 164
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885s. 10(d), s. 16, s. 17

Subjects

Telegraph ActCompensationTransmission linePoultry farmPublic interestClearanceDeviationHigh voltageElectromagnetic fieldLand acquisition

Judgment

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 1055

,; M.D., M/S. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. A·

- v.
R. CHELLAPPAN & ORS.
(Civil Appe<1I No. ?,41 ~ gf 2009)
MAY 8, 2009
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSPEH, JJ.]
~

Telegraph Act, 1885:

ss. 16, 17 and 10 (d) - Erection of transmission towers c
and laying the High voltage transmission lines - High Voltage
wires passing over poultry sheds - Likely to affect
performance and health of layer birds - Held: Purchase of
/,:ind and starting poultry business were effected when survey
fOr route of transmission line was being undertaken - In view D
of stand of Power Grid Corporation that deviation in
transmissipn linfJ§ could not be practically achieved,
Corporation would r[Jise the height of the lowest point of sag
of transmission lines between two towers on either sides of the
poultry shed from 46. 5 meters to 56 meters raising the
E
clearance to 40' between the lowest point of sag and the
highest point of poultry shed - Company would be entitled to
oompensation on account of erection of tower for carrying
transmission lines over poultry farm in accordance with
provisions of s. 10 (d) of the Act- Equity- Balance between
grievance of individual and public interest. F

The appellant company which was engaged in
poultry farming, purchased land and constructed poultry
sheds thereon, at about the same time when respondent
No. 3, the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., started G
.. ,- survey in the area for erecting transmission towers for
carrying High Voltage electricity current transmission
wires at various locations. The appellant company
apprehending that High voltage transmission wires over
1055 H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R

A the poultry sheds would adversely affect the performance
and health of layer birds, filed a writ petition before the
High Court seeking a realignment of the transmission
lines so that either the poultry sheds could be avoided
-
or the height of the tower could be raised. The High Court
B directed the petitioner company to file objection before
the District Magistrate, who directed the Corporation to
realign the transmission power line. Since the proposed
realignment was to pass over a portion of the land of +
respondent No. 1, he filed a writ petition challenging the
c order of the District Magistrate. The Division Bench of the
High Court set aside the order of the District Magistrate.
Aggrieved, the company carrying on poultry farming filed
the appeal.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1. On consideration of the rival submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties, a balance will
have to be achieved between the appellant's grievance
and both the technical as well as techno ecological
E feasibility of altering the route of the transmission lines
in keeping with the directions given by the District
Collector. [Para 26) [1067-A-B]
.
1.2. The purchases of the land by the appellant-
company for starting the poultry business and the
F erection of the poultry sheds were effected at a point of
time when the process of identifying the route of the
transmission lines was already in progress and survey
work was being unclertaken. It cannot be said that the
appellant-company did not have knowledge of the
G ongoing project, which is for the benefit of a large
number of people of the area as against the interest of a • ..
single individual. [Para 27] [1067-G-H; 1068-A]

1.3. In view of the objections on behalf of the Power
H Grid Corporation that the deviation in the transmission
IVl.D., M/S. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. v. R. 1057
CHELLAPPAN & ORS.

lines, as suggested on behalf of the appellant-company, A
_,,
• ce>uld not be practically achieved, the next best solution
that can be resorted to is to increase the clearance
b1?tween the lowest point of the sag of the transmission
cable and the top most portion of the appellant's poultry
sheds. From the point of the sag on both sides the cable B
moves upwards and the clearance becomes even greater
on both sides of the lowest spot. [Para 27] [1068-A-C]
~

1.4. The Power Grid Corporation had already
accepted the alternate suggestion made on behalf of the
appellant-company and raised the height of the lowest
c
point of sag of the transmission lines between the two
towers on either side of the poultry sheds of the
·-· appellant-company from 46.5 metres, to 52 metres, which
in practical terms means a clearance of 30 ft. between the
l1>west point of the sag and the highest point of the D
poultry shed. In the Circumstances, the Corporation is
directed to further increase the clearance from 52 meters
to 56 meters so that the clearance between the lowest
point of the sag of the cable and the top most portion of
tlhe poultry shed is not less than ·40 ft. The Order of the E
Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 26
and 28] [1067-D-E; 1068-D-F]

2. The appellant-company will be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provision of s.10(d) F
of the Telegraph Act, 1885, for use of its lands or the
damage caused thereto on account of the erection of the
tower/pylon for carrying the transmission lines over the
poultry farm. [Para 29] [1068-F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G

- • :~413 of 2009 .

From the Judgment & Order dated 29.08.2008 of the High
Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in W.A. (MD) No. 522 of 2008.
H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A S. Ganesh, Prasarith P., V. Vasudevan and K.V. Bharathi ).

Upadhyaya for the Appellants.
"'
Parag Tripathi, A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, V. Prabhakar,
Ramjee Prasad, Revathy Raghavan, Nitih Thukral,
Yashodharan Anand, Kuna! Bahri (for Parekh & Co.) R.
B
Nedumaran and P. Soma Sundaram for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .,

c
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged
-
in the business of poultry farming which is confined to tpe
production of eggs. It has constructed three separate sheds on -~
Survey Nos.242/2 and 249/3 in Nanniyur Pudur Village in Karur
District in the State of Tamil Nadu for accommodating about
D 1.25 lakh layer birds. It is the case of the appellant that it had
invested a sum of about Rs.6 crores in acquiring the lands,
erecting the sheds thereupon and acquiring the birds for the
purpose of starting the poultry farm.

E 3. At this juncture, it may be noted that the lands on which
the poultry farm was started by the appellant, had been acquired
in two stages. About 11 acres of land were acquired by the
appellant- Company on 23rd June, 2004 and about 4 acres
were acquired on 19th November, 2004.
F 5. At about the same time, the 3rd respondent, The Power
Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Corporation') took up the work of construction of a 400 KV
Perambalur - Pugalur DIC Line as part of the Neyveli Thermal
Station Expansion Project for evacuation of electricity
G generated therein. In the process, transmission towers were
required to be installed in various locations, some of which were
private lands, including the Patta lands of the appellant, where
~
--
its poultry farm is situated.
6. On 8th October, 2006, the appellant sought an opinion
H
M.D., M/S. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. v. R. 1059
CHELLAPPAN & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR; J.]

A
from the Assistant Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, A

- regarding the effect on the layer birds on account of emission
of electro magnetic fields from the High Voltage Transmission
Lines passing over the poultry sheds. According to the said
!
authority, the passing of High Voltage Electricity Current
ltansmission Wires over the poultry sheds would adversely B
affect the performance and health of the birds in the long run.

- ':.
'f 7. The appellant thereupon filed Writ Petition No.6850/06
before the High Court, seeking a re- alignment of the
transmission lines so that either the appellant's poultry sheds
could be avoided or the height of the tower/pylon could be c
raised. Relying on an earlier order dated 18th January, 2007,

- ...
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High court in
Writ Petition No.49172/06, the learned Single Judge of the
Madras High Court by his judgment and order dated 31st
January, 2007, disposed of the said Writ· Petition, along with D
other connected writ petitions, with liberty to the writ petitioners
to submit their objections, if any, to the District Magistrate
concerned, within a period of two weeks from the date of the
order. The District Magistrate was directed to consider the
same in the light of the order passed by the Court and pass E
an order on merits and in accordance with law, after affording
an opportunity to the petitioners, as well as the respondents,
~
to make out their respective cases, within a period of six weeks
thereafter.
='\ F
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate
issued notice to the appellant and the Corporation to file
objections, if any. The appellant filed its objections indicating
the damage that would be caused to the poultry farm, if the
transmission line was not shifted to avoid the poultry sheds. The
appellant asked for a small deviation of the route of the power G
'i linei in the eastward direction, within his lands, so that minimum
damage was effected to the poultry farm. On the other hand,
the Corporation submitted that no deviation of the transmission
linei from the approved route of alignment was feasible. After a
H
M.D., M/S. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. v. R. 1061
CHELLAPPAN & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.)

;. . e11gaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, A
any of the powers which the Telegraph Authority possesses
under the Telegraph Act with respect to the placing of telephonic
lines or posts for the purpose of a telephone established or
maintained by the Government or to be so established or
maintained. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the B
Division Bench was wrong in holding that under Section 16 of
the Telegraph Act, the District Magistrate had no power to
change the alignment and that the Division Bench had failed
t() notice that the order of the District Magistrate was not under
Section 16, but under Section 17(3) of the said Act. c
12. Another ground of challenge was that the impugned
c1rder of the Division Bench was contrary to the earlier order
elated 31st January, 2007, directing the Corporation to
approach the District Magistrate concerned in each case for
. permission to deal with the objections raised by the petitioners D
• with the further direction that the said District Magistrate would
consider the objections and pass orders in accordance with the
provisions which have been indicated in the said order. It was
i~lso urged that since the same had become final between the
parties, there was no scope for a contrary order to be passed, E
1!iS has been done in terms of the impugned order of the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.522/08, holding that under
Section 16 of the Te•egraph Act the District Collector was not
empowered to change the alignment.
F
13. The last ground of challenge was that the Division
Bench had lost sight of the fact that the Corporation had, in fact,
accepted the order passed by the District Magistrate and has
even acted thereupon, as it had stated in its Counter Affidavit
filed in response to the writ petition filed by R. Chellappan.
G
' 14. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the appellant, submitted that Sections 10 and 17 of the
Telegraph Act have to be read pragmatically to meet a situation
where the transmission line had already been erected and even
. ' if the alternative prayer made by the appellant in its writ petition H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.

A was to be granted, the same would not lessen the danger of
the Electromagnetic Waves created by the high power
transmission lines damaging the health of the birds in the poultry
farm and adversely affecting their egg-laying capacity. Mr.
Ganesh urged that such a prayer had been made without the
B assistance of the opinion of an expert, who has subsequently
indicated in no uncertain terms that even if the height of the
transmission lines was raised to double the height to which it ¥
had been raised, it would still adversely affect the egg-laying
capacity of the birds.
c 15. Mr. Ganesh vehemently submitted that the application
of the appellant being under Section 17 of the ·Telegraph Act,
it was within the power and jurisdiction of the District Magistrate
to direct a small deviation of the transmission line over the
appellant's own lands, the expenses wherefor would be borne
D by the appellant, so as to avoid its passing directly over the ~

poultry sheds. Mr. Ganesh also submitted that since the
Corporation was ready and willing to make a deviation over the
adjoining land belonging to Respondent No.1, except for the
alleged damage as may be caused to the coconut trees and
E the temple on its revised route, there was no reason why the
same could not be adopted in order to save the huge
investment which the appellant had already made in the poultry
farm, the loss whereof would completely cripple the appellant's
business, particularly, when the poultry farm was already in
F operation before the evacuation project from the Neyveli dam
had even been contemplated or started.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1
supported the order of the District Collector but contended that
since the interest of the public at large relating to supply of
G electricity was involved, it was necessary for the dispute to be
set at rest so that the transmission line could be commissioned •
at the earliest opportunity.
17. On behalf of the Corporation, Mr. Parag Tripathi,
H learned Additional Solicitor General contended that the order
M.D., MIS. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. v. R. 1063
CHl::LLAPPAN & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.J

I. of the District Magistrate directing change in alignment of the A
transmission line did not take into consideration various factors,
namely, that the transmission line which would pass over the
contiguous plot belonged to the Respondent No.1 and
bordered the plot of the appellant.
B
18. Mr. Tripathi submitted that the electricity to be
generated by the Neyveli Thermal-II Expansion in the State of
" Tamil Nadu has to be distributed by the construction of a 400
KV DIC transmission line from Neyveli to Pugalur comprising
of 57€1 towers with a length of 198 kms. connecting the Neyveli
Thermal Power Station II to Pugalur 400 KV Sub-station. The c
estimated cost of the project was set at Rs.691.83 crores. He
also submitted that on 24th December, 2003, the Government
of India had, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section
164 of the Electricity Act of 2003, passed an order authorizing
... the Corporation to exercise all the powers vested in the D
Telegraph Authority under Part Ill of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 in respect of the electrical lines and electrical plants
established or maintained, or to be so established or
maintained for transmission of electricity or for the purpose of
telephonic or telegraphic communication necessary for the E
proper coordination of work. Further more, Mis. Shyama Power
(India) Private Ltd. had already been issued the Works Order
. for dEitailed survey on 9th June, 2004 and such work had been
completed in the year 2004 itself. He submitted that the local
public was taken into confidence during the consultation F
programmes organized by the Corporation on 2nd October,
2004 and only thereafter, on completion of the survey works,
the route alignment was marked along with vital landmarks,
including the crossing of the Cauveri river and the locations on
which the towers were to be erected. Mr. Tripathi contended G
that despite having knowledge that the area was marked for
~
an overhead transmission line over Survey Nos.24911 to 2491
11 and 242 of Nanniyur Village, the petitioner went on to
purchase the lands on which the poultry farm was established
on 23rd June, 2004 and 19th November, 2004. The learned H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A Additional Solicitor General also submitted that the work of the
project had advanced to a stage where out of the total number
of 576 locations, the foundation work for erection of towers had
been completed in respect of 568 locations and towers had
already been erected at 553 locations. Furthermore, out of the
B length of 198 kms., the stringing work of the transmission lines
had been completed upto 171 kms. and, although, the
transmission line should have been commissioned on or
before the month of October, 2007, the same had been delayed
due to the present litigation. The learned Additional Solicitor
C General also submitted that the representation made by the
appellant- Company had been disposed of by the Corporation
on 7th May, 2005 on the ground that at the time of the survey
work, there was no poultry farm in existence and that it was not
techno-economically feasible to realign the transmission line at
the advanced stage of implementation. Mr. Tripathi urged that
0
the fact that the Managing Director of the appellant-Company
was a local man would also be evident from the fact that the
Certificate of Incorporation of the appellant-Company indicates
the plots in question to be the address of the Company and it
is difficult to accept that the Managing Director of the Company
E did not have any knowledge of the ongoing project, which
included large scale survey work for finalizing the alignment and
the route to be taken, including the construction of towers/ +
pylons for carrying the transmission lines.
F 19. It was also submitted that the alternate prayer made
on behalf of the appellant-Company had been duly considered
and acted upon and the height of the transmission towers in
question had been raised from 46.5 meters to 52 meters so
that the gap between the highest point of the construction and
G the lowest point of the sag in the transmission line was 30 ft.
The same having been done, the appellant should not have any
further cause for complaint.
20. Mr. Tripathi submitted that while passing the order,
purporting to be an order under Section 17 of the Telegraph
H Act, the District Magistrate had failed to take into consideration
M.D., MIS. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. v. R. 1065
CHELLAPPAN & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

that an order under Section 17 could only be passed after the A
erection of the towers and that too for altering the alignment
within the same land. Further more, the alternate plea of raising
the height of the towers, as also the technical feasibility
regarding the crossing of the transmission lines at the Highway
crossing and also the river Cauveri, together with the higher B
cost provision for realignment and the ecological aspect had
not been taken into consideration by the District Collector, who
passEid the order on 30th April, 2007 in a purely mechanical
manner without giving any thought to the various consequences
that such order was bound to give rise to. c
21. Mr. Tripathi referred to the Full Bench decision of the
Kerala High Court in Mammoo Vs. State of Kera/a & Anr. tAIR
1980 Kern!a 18], where it was held that while Section 16(1) of
the 1elegraph Act vested the District Magistrate with certain
• authority which he would be entitled to exercise in his discretion, D
such functions were only of an administrative or executive
nature. In effect, it was held that the District Magistrate, while
exercising power under Section 16(1) of the above Act, did not
act as a Court, but in a purely administrative capacity.
E
:22. Reference was also made to the decision of the Kerala
High Court in Moidu alias Kunnippa Vs. The District
• Magistrate and District Collector, Ma/appuram and Ors.
[MANU/KE/0410/1998], in support of the submission that in
order to attract Section 17 of the aforesaid Act, the telegraph F
line or post in question would have had to be installed and
would have had to be shifted from one portion to another portion
of th19 same property.

23. Mr. Tripathi submitted that having regard to the prayers
made by the appellant in its Writ Petition (MD) No.6850/06 G
l before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the
alternate prayer for raising the height of the tower has been
acted upon by the Corporation and the appellant could not,
themfore, have any further grievance against the Corporation
with regard to the carriage of the transmission lines over the H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A appellant's property.

24. Appearing for R. Chellappan, the Respondent No.1,
Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior counsel
adopted Mr. Tipathi's submissions and submitted that if the
order of the District Collector was accepted as having been
B
passed under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, then any
realignment of the transmission line would have to be effected
within the plot of the person at whose instance such realignment •
is sought. The proposed alternate alignment through the land
of the Respondent No.1 was not, therefore, permissible and
c such proposed alternate alignment was liable to be rejected.
25. On the other hand, Mr. R. Nedumaran, learned counsel
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, while supporting the
order passed by the District Collector, urged that the erection
D of the towers for carrying the transmission lines was for the i'

benefit of the public at large who stood to benefit from the
energising of the target area for the improvement of the lot of
the people of the area. Mr. Nedumaran, however, also pointed
out that from the order of the District Magistrate and Collector
E dated 30th April, 2007, it would be more or less evident that
the poultry sheds had been constructed before the proposed
route alignment. From the order of the District Collector, Mr.
Nedumaran also pointed out that while the appellant had no •
objection to the power transmission line being taken over its
lands, the District Collector had taken into consideration the
F
limited request made on behalf of the Appellant-Company that
the route of the power line be diverted in the eastward direction
within the limits of its lands instead of passing through the
middle of the said lands which would cause extensive damage
to its poultry farm. Mr. Nedumaran submitted that the Collector,
G
by invoking his powers under Section 17(3) of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, directed the Appellant-Company to realign .-
the transmission lines in such a way that they did not pass
directly above the poultry sheds of the Respondent No.1
situated at S.F. Nos.242/2 and 249/3, Nanniyur Village, Karur
H Taluk.
M.D., M/S. RAMAKRISHNA POULTRY P. LTD. v. R. 1067
CHELLAPPAN & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

26. On consideration of the rival submissions made on A
lbehalf of the respective parties, it is obvious that a balance will
have to be achieved between the appellant's grievance and
both the technical as well as techno ecological feasibility of
altering the route of the transmission lines in keeping with the
directions given by the District Collector. The simplest and the B
most ideal solution would have been to alter the route of the
transmission lines so that they did not directly pass over the
~ • appellant's poultry sheds, particularly when the appellant is
ready and willing to bear the expenses of such alteration.
However, since, according to the Power Grid Corporation and c
its experts, that would entail a deviation over the lands of the
Respondent No.1, R. Chellappan, the same gave rise to the
objections raised by R. Chellappan. Keeping aside the technical
aspect of the matter as to whether the order passed by the
District Collector was one under Sections 16 or 17 of the Indian
• D
Telegraph Act, 1885, in order to arrive at a practical solution
to the problem, the Power Grid Corporation accepted the
alternate suggestion made on behalf of the Appellant-Company
and raised the height of the lowest point of sag of the
transmission lines between the two towers on either side of the
poultry sheds of the Appellant-company from 46.5 meters To E
52 meters, which in practical terms means a clearance of 30
,;
ft. between the lowest point of the sag and the highest point of
the poultry shed. Of course, it has been contended by Mr.
Ganesh that according to the report of the expert, even if the
height of the tower was raised to a 100 meters, the electro- F
magnetic field created by the transmission of high voltage
electricity would still encompass the poultry sheds and
adversely affect the reproductive system not only of the chickens
but of all living things within that zone.
G
27. However, what goes against the case of the Appellant-
Company is the fact that the purchases of the land for starting
the poultry business and the erection of the poultry sheds were
effected at a point of time when the process of identifying the
route of the transmission lines was already in progress and H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.

A suNey work was being undertaken. We find it difficult to accept
1
that the Appellant- company did not have knowledge of the
ongoing project. which is for the benefit of a large number of
people of the area as against the interest of a single individual.
In view of the objections on behalf of the Power Grid
B Corporation that the deviation in the transmission lines, as
suggested on behalf of the Appellant-company, could not be
practically achieved, we are left with the next best solution, i.e ..
to increase the clearance between the lowest point of the sag
of the transmission cable and the top most portion of the
c appellant's poultry sheds. It should not also be forgotten that from
the point of the sag on both sides the cable moves upwards
and the clearance becomes even greater on both sides of the
lowest spot. During the hearing we had asked Mr. Tripathi to
confirm with the Engineers of the Power Grid Corporation to
explore the possibility of raising the height of the towers even
0
further to lessen the damage, if any, that may be caused to the
egg laying capacity of the layers in the appellant's poultry farm.
28. Although, the response appears to be equivocal, we
set aside the order of the Division Bench of the Madras High
E Court impugned in this appeal and direct the Power Grid
Corporation to increase the clearance indicated above from 52
meters to 56 meters so that the clearance between the lowest
point of the sag of the cable and the top most portion of the >-
poultry shed is not less than 40 ft.
F
29. The Appellant-Company will be entitled to such
compensation to which it may be entitled for use of its lands or
the damage caused thereto on account of the erection of the
tower/pylon for carrying the transmission lines over the
appellant's plant, in accordance with the provisions of Section
G 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

30. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.

H R.P. Appeal allowed.