IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8986 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.KUNJAN, VATTAMPARA HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERUMELI KARA, PALLIKKARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., B-9, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, KATWARIASARAI, NEW DELHI- 110 016. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INIDA LTD., NEAR POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8986 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P1(a)- TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, CANAL ETC. EXT.P1(b)- TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, CANAL ETC. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.2.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.1.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).8986/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petitioner is to direct the respondents not to divert water to the canal on the southern side of the property of the petitioner causing damages to his property and residential house. There is a further prayer to construct/restore retaining wall by the side of the property of the petitioner which is situated in Survey No.33/18 of Kunnathunadu Village, allegedly damaged due to the digging of canal, diversion of water and other activities. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondents acquired 12.81 hectares of land in various survey numbers of Erumelikara of Kunnathunadu Village including that of the petitioner, for construction of 440 KV Sub Station. There was a thodu through the acquired property. A canal was constructed by making a single canal into two and the thodu was filled up. It is stated that due to the overflow of water, damage has been caused to the petitioner's property. With this allegation the writ petition has been filed. W.P.(C).8986/11 2 Petitioner relies on Ext.P1 series of photographs and Ext.P3 representation, made claiming damages from the respondents. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which they contend that they acquired the property in question for the purpose of a 400 KV Sub Station which is under construction. It is stated that the thodu puramboke was assigned by the Government as per Ext.R2(a) order dated 2.11.2008. According to them, the thodu had to be filled up and for the diversion of the water, they got a study conducted by the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management, (CWRDM), Kozhikode, into the various options. It is stated that based on the recommendations, old single thodu was made into two and routed through the northern and southern sides of the Sub Station in order to ensure free flow of the water and to avoid flooding during the rainy season. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit the allegation that due to overflow, damage was caused to the petitioner's property, has been specifically denied. 4. Thus, the case of the petitioner that damage was caused to his property, is fully disputed by the respondents. In such W.P.(C).8986/11 3 circumstances, there arise no question for this Court to issue any direction as sought for in the writ petition. 5. Be that as it may, if as stated by the petitioner Ext.P3 representation made by him is pending before the second respondent, it is directed that the second respondent shall deal with the same, in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs