IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30483 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LEEMA PAUL W/O.PAUL, AGED 40 YEARS VELASSERIL, KUNNOTH PO KILIYANTHARA, IRITTY KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUB STATION SUB DIVISION THALASSERY, PONNIAM WEST PO - 670 641. BY ADV.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30483 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd respondent not to construct the proposed tower in the property of the petitioner as stated in Ext.P1 notice. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd respondent to make appropriate change of the site for constructing the tower, so as tosave the property of the petitioner as pointed out in Ext.P2 representation. 2. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is going to construct a tower for 110 KV of DC line from Mattannur to Iritty just in front of the house and beside the well of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of 50 cents of land. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent came on 8.10.2008 and served Ext.P1 notice. Petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation. In Ext.P1, it is stated that the 110 KV DC line from Mattannur to WPC.30483/08 : 2 : Iritty will pass through the petitioner's property with a tower location. It is also stated that compensation will be paid as per Rules. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Learned standing counsel submits that it may be a case of acquisition. 4. If the tower is to pass through the property of the petitioner and no acquisition as such is involved, then, in view of the resistance of the petitioner, certainly the authority is duty bound to refer the matter to the ADM and it is only after obtaining permission from the ADM, the tower can be located in the property of the petitioner and line can be drawn through the property of the petitioner. It is needless to say, the acquisition can be done only strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing that if no acquisition is involved, the drawing of the line or placing of the tower in the property of the petitioner can be done only after obtaining permission from the ADM. If what is contemplated is acquisition necessarily it can be done only in accordance with law. WPC.30483/08 : 3 : Needless to say, the respondent cannot interfere with the rights of the petitioner in regard to the property unless either there is any acquisition in accordance with law or permission is obtained from the ADM. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE