IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 6260 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VASU, S/O. KARUMANDY, KRISHNAKRIPA, MELAZHY HOUSE, THOLANNUR PO, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTH BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUZHALMANNAM,PALAKKAD. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUZHALMANNAM,PALAKKAD. 4. THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 5. THANKA, D/O.KUPPANDY, MANTHITTA, PEZHUNGODE, NOCHUR PO, KUTHANNUR II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. P.SANTHALINGAM (SENIOR), SC, KSEB SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K., SRI.LIJU. M.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8923 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6260/2010 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD. 28/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTHANNUR II VILLAGE. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 31/10/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 11/1/2010 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/02/2010. R5(A): COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 12/10/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. R5(B): COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 06/01/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. R5(C): COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 27/01/2010 FILED BY SHAJI AGAINST EXT.R5(B). R5(D): ORDER DTD. 17/02/2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.6260 & 8923 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 order produced in W.P.(C) No.8923 of 2010, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2010 is under challenge in these writ petitions filed by two adjacent land owners. By the said order, the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad permitted the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officers to draw 45 meters of overhead line through the properties of the petitioners for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the residences of respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2010, who are respondents 5 and 6 respectively in the connected writ petition. The main ground raised in these writ petitions is that the electricity line can be drawn through the forest land which abuts the properties of the beneficiaries and therefore the proposal to draw the line through the properties belonging to the petitioners is arbitrary. It is also contended that if the line is drawn through the property belonging to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8923 of 2010, 40 rubber trees will have to be cut and removed. 2. The order impugned discloses that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2010 had not filed any objection before the Additional District Magistrate, though he was represented by counsel. W.P.(C) Nos.6260 & 8923 of 2010 2 The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8923 of 2010 had filed a counter statement, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R6(c), wherein it was contended that if 30 meters of overhead line is drawn through his property, 40 yielding rubber trees will have to be cut and removed and that the line will pass through the middle of his property. The sketch accompanying Ext.R6(b) produced in W.P.(C) No.8923 of 2010, which is the application submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer before the Additional District Magistrate discloses that the proposal is to draw 30 meters of overhead line along the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8923 of 2010 and 12 meters of overhead line along the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6260 of 2010. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer has also filed a counter affidavit to the effect that there are no standing trees in the property of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8923 of 2010. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (C) No.6260 of 2010, it is stated that for the purpose of drawing the electricity line, it is not necessary to cut rubber trees as contended by W.P.(C) Nos.6260 & 8923 of 2010 3 the parties. It is also stated that the disputed line was initially drawn and was dismantled on objection being raised by the petitioners and that the rest of the line having a length of 920 meters has already been drawn. These facts have not been denied or disputed by filing a reply affidavit. 4. From the materials on record, the claim made by the petitioners that if the line is drawn in the manner approved by the Additional District Magistrate, they will be seriously prejudiced does not appear to be tenable. Further, the petitioners do not dispute the statement in the impugned order that the rest of the line having a length of 920 meters has already been drawn and all that remains to be done is to draw the overhead line for about 45 meters along the properties of the petitioners for the purpose of giving electricity connection to the beneficiaries. In such circumstances, as the proposal is to draw the overhead line along the boundary of the land belonging to the petitioners and the rest of the line has already been drawn and no tree is required to be cut for the purpose of drawing the line, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the W.P.(C) Nos.6260 & 8923 of 2010 4 impugned order. That apart, the alternate route suggested by the petitioners is to draw the overhead line through forest land. The petitioners cannot, in my opinion, contend that instead of drawing the line along the boundary of their properties, the Kerala State Electricity Board should draw the line through forest land. For the reasons stated above, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.