IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 1220 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ RUKHIYA BEEVI,AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. SULAIMAN P.K.PEEDIKAYIL,ALAPRA P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL) KOTTYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION,KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. THE SECRETARY, ALAPRA MUSLIM JAMA-ATH, ALAPPRA P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE THAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA FOR R3 SRI.ANZAR BASHEER FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED HASHIM SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN,SC KSEB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1220/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DT 21.3.1996. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.R.P.1853 OF 2008 DT 10.6.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.7.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT 14.11.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 20.12.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE LOCALITY WHICH IS ISSUED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DT 21.1.2009. EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING SUBJECT PASSAGE. EXT.R3(b): TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE SITE. EXT.R3(c): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST ADDRESSED TO TAHSILDAR, REQUESTING ISSUE A DOCUMENT WITH REGARD TO EXISTING PASSAGE. EXT.R3(d): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.37/09 DT 13.2.2009 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA WHICH IS SENT TO THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1220 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, an order passed by the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent had applied for supply of electricity to their premises. The petitioner and another neighbour raised objections and thereupon the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent invoking his powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, seeking removal of the obstructions. It was in that proceedings Ext.P5 order was passed allowing the line to be drawn in the manner as provided therein. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, referring to Ext.P4 objection filed by her before the 1st respondent is, that an alternate route was proposed by her and that the same was not considered. It is also her contention that going by Ext.P3 sketch, though the line is to be drawn through a pathway, there is no such pathway as claimed. In this context, reference was made to Ext.P6, a copy of the survey plan. It is her case that taking advantage of the order, the line will be drawn through the petitioner's property. WPC 1220/09 :2 : 3. Petitioner's case is that the ownership of the plot in question including the portion through which the line is to be drawn is that of her. 4. However, Ext.R3(a) is the photograph produced by the 3rd respondent showing a portion of the alignment through which the line is to be drawn and the factual correctness of the photograph is not disputed by the petitioner. This shows that in the alignment of the line, a pathway is in existence. Ext.R3(d) is a report submitted by the Village Officer after due inspection of the site in question, which also shows that the pathway in question is being used by the general public for more than 75 years. In the light of these materials, I am not prepared to hold that there is no pathway as claimed by the petitioner. 5. Evidently, therefore, the line in question is to pass through the pathway which is in existence since long. If that be so, the line drawn cannot cause any injury to the petitioner's property. 6. True, the petitioner has a case that the pathway through which the line is to be drawn is a part of her own property. I do not think the pronouncement on that issue is WPC 1220/09 :3 : neither necessary nor called for in this proceedings and in any case, even if the line is drawn, that by itself will not deprive the petitioner of her ownership over the alignment in question if she has ownership over the same. 7. Now that I am satisfied that the line if drawn will not cause any injury to the petitioner's property, I am not inclined to think that Ext.P5 is bad for the reason that the alternate proposal suggested by the petitioner was not considered. That apart, going by the sketch produced, it is evident that the alternate proposal made by the petitioner will require drawing of the line over an area in which buildings have been constructed by the 3rd respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that the respondents can be faulted for not accepting the alternate proposal made by the petitioner. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp