IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2008 / 10TH BHADRA, 1930 CRP.No. 865 of 2004() --------------------- OPELE.165/1997 of IST ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ C.A.KOCHAPPAN, CHOONDAN HOUSE, KARUVANKADU P.O., KUNDUKADU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA SRI.BIMAL K.NATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, WORLD BANK PROJECT CIRCLE I, THRISSUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (WORLD BANK SCHEME), THRISSUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MULTI CIRCUIT LINE, SUB DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THRISSUR-4. 6. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 7. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR. R1 to R3 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1/9/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.865 OF 2004 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2006 O R D E R Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in O.P.(Ele.) No.165/97 has filed this revision petition. He filed an application under Sections 10(d) and 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act seeking compensation for the injurious affection of his property due to the drawing of 229 KV electric line by the Kerala State Electricity Board. It was his specific contention that he was granted a licence by the competent authority under the Explosive Substances Act valid upto 31/3/1997 to hold explosives for the conduct of a quarry at Vengappara in Thrissur Taluk within the Thrissur forest division. The property was located in Sy.No.11/2 of Madakkathara Village. He had employed 30 regular employees and several other temporary workers. The quarry work was started in the year 1980. He had also made huge -2- C.R.P.NO.865/2004 investments for laying a road and also a canal to drain spring water. Further he had availed a loan of an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from a bank for the construction of the road and canal and he had spent an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards the building of the canal. It was in the meantime that the the K.S.E. Board proceeded to draw electric line which crosses through the quarry of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to stop the quarrying operations within seven days of receipt of the notice. In the said notice it was specifically stated that he will be given compensation. So however no compensation was paid later, because the Deputy Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) informed the K.S.E. Board that quantification of the damages is not possible. It is in these circumstances that he had approached the court below seeking compensation for the loss sustained by him due to the drawing of the electric line. He stated that though he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,50,000/-, he is limiting his -3- C.R.P.NO.865/2004 claim to Rs.9,00,000/-. The K.S.E. Board contended that the petitioner was only a licensee under the Forest Department and such licence is granted remitting royalty and the required tax for collecting the rubbles using explosives. It is based on the licence granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur that he is able to carry on the quarrying operation. Since the quarry is just below the electric line drawn, necessarily he cannot continue to do any such operation. That is why the quarrying operation is prohibited. But in the factual situation he is not entitled for any compensation. 2. On the side of the petitioner Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A19 were marked and on the side of the respondent RW-1 was examined. The court below raised issues regarding as to whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person under the Electricity Act and whether he is entitled for any compensation and if so, what is the quantum. Both issues -4- C.R.P.NO.865/2004 were tried together and held against him. Hence this revision petition. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is admittedly a licensee under the Forest Department for conducting quarrying operation in the premises belonged to the Forest Department after paying royalty. The said licence is restricted for a period of one week, which however is extended from time to time in the absence of any other rival claimants. The fact that he had taken an explosive licence is not disputed, that such a licence is also necessary for doing the quarrying operation, is beyond dispute. The fact that the explosive licence is given for a long period than the period for which the quarrying operation was permitted to be done by the Forest Department every week, in no way advances his right to claim compensation. It is admitted that he cannot do the quarrying operation unless the licence is renewed from time to time by the Forest Department. If so, by stopping the quarry operation the affected party is the Forest Department, since they -5- C.R.P.NO.865/2004 were receiving the royalty. Whether it is received from the petitioner or from any other licensee is not relevant. It ultimately affects the right of ownership over the land. The petitioner's right is only by way of grant from the owner. He had no case that he could not complete his operation during the licensing period. Licence being restricted to one week, during that period he could do the quarrying operation, the fact that he cannot get a licence from the Forest Department because of drawing of the electric line, in no way gives him any right to claim damages from the K.S.E. Board. His right thus is conditioned by the licence being granted by the Forest Department. He has no invariable right to insist that a licence should be granted in his favour. In so far as he has no right to get a licence from the Forest Department, his remote chance of such licence being granted in his favour had the line not drawn and will not confer any right as such to claim damages from the Board. The order -6- C.R.P.NO.865/2004 passed by the court below is in no way illegal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE kcv.