IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35631 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAITHI, AGED 85, W/O.VARGHESE, KURAN KOROTTU HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMBU, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, MAINTENANCE SECTION, CHALAKUDY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KSEB OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KSEB OFFICE, THRISSUR. 4. THE AEE, LM SD, KSEB OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35631 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of 81 and odd cents of property in Karukutty village. The Kerala State Electricity Board has drawn a 66 KV line over the petitioner's property by erecting a tower in the property. On 15-8-2009, the petitioner's son received Ext. P2 notice issued by the 1st respondent proposing to shift the existing tower to another place in the petitioner's property itself and to raise the height of the overhead line and width of the tower to assure minimum distance from the ground level to the overhead line. It is also mentioned therein that the petitioner would be adequately compensated for the same in accordance with law. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that although the petitioner is not objecting to the proposed shifting of the tower and widening the base of the tower, the same cannot be done before an award is passed by the awarding officer regarding the compensation payable. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pass an award, before entering into the property of the petitioner in pursuance to Ext. P2 notice. B. To declare that if the respondents and their workmen enter into the property of the petitioner without passing an award would be treated as trespass.” 2. The learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board submits that what is proposed is only to shift the existing tower to another place in the same property with a wider base, for which the Electricity Board does not propose to cut any trees in the property nor to demolish any constructions thereon of the petitioner. For injurious W.P.C. No. 35631/09 -: 2 :- affection to the property after shifting of the tower, the petitioner would be adequately compensated as per law is the submission made. As such, at present, before establishing the tower, no proceedings can be taken because the extent of injurious affection would be known only after establishing the tower, is the contention raised. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, that also can be done only after preparing a mahazar. 4. Of course, the learned standing counsel would also submit that the National Highway Authority proposes to acquire the property of the petitioner itself, wherein the tower is proposed to be shifted. But, he would submit that for that purpose, the National Highway Authorities are bound to comply with the provisions of law applicable for such acquisition of law, with which the Kerala State Electricity Board is not concerned. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. When the Electricity Board submits that they have no intention to cut any trees of the petitioner or to demolish any building or other structure belonging to the petitioner, there is no necessity to prepare a mahazar as such since there is no acquisition of the land is involved while erecting the tower. The compensation for injurious affection to the property can also be determined after the line is drawn. But the compensation payable to the petitioner has to be determined only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Accordingly, with a direction to the competent among the respondents to hear the petitioner before fixing compensation due to the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of. But, I make it clear W.P.C. No. 35631/09 -: 3 :- that in the meanwhile, the respondents can continue the proceedings for erecting the tower and drawing the line. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/