IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 56 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36293/2010 Dated 10/12/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. ADV.P.A.ABOOBACKER, S/O.AHAMMED HAJI, AGED 63 YEARS, PIRIMBIKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADI. 2. ABDUL SHUKOOR, S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, PIRIMBIKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADI. 3. HAWAMMA, W/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, PIRIMBIKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADI. 4. SUMI ABOOBACKER, D/O.P.A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 31 YEARS, PIRIMBIKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADI. 5. SUHARA, D/O.MEETHIYAN, AGED 62 YEARS, THACHAYIL (H), ARACKAPPADI. 6. SAPHIYA ABOOBACKER, W/O.ADV.P.A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 54 YEARS, PIRIMBIKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADI. 7. SUDHEER, S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, AGED 40 YEARS, PIRIMBIKUDI (H), ARAKKAPADI. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SR II 32 RACE COURSE ROAD, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001. 5. THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, CHANDINI PLOT NO.190B, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 020. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER R4&5 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, ALONG WITH WA NOS.61& 62 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal Nos.56, 61 & 62 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeals are filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate approving drawal of electric line over the property of the appellants. The line is a National Grid crossing the entire State from south to north connecting Kudankulam to Karnataka and beyond. We do not think there is any scope for interference with the orders of the District Magistrate approving drawal of the line which is mainly over rural and agricultural areas. Connected cases have been dismissed by this court vide judgment in SUKUMARAN.P.G. VS. POWER GRID CORPORATION LTD. reported in 2010(1) KHC 918. However, we reserve the right of the appellants to claim compensation in accordance with law for the loss suffered by them. There will also be direction to the respondents to maintain sufficient height for the line particularly, where the line cross over buildings. Respondents should keep in mind W.A. 56,61&62/2011 2 the allegation of health hazards by those who are permitted to reside beneath the line and the lines should be kept sufficiently high to prevent it. If appellants have a case that the power transmission above their houses cause health hazards, they have an option to prove the same and ask for compulsory acquisition of the land and building claiming full compensation. We also make it clear that the respondents should keep in mind chances of court ordering compulsory acquisition and payment of full compensation, if there is proof of health hazards, before they proceed to draw lines over houses. Appellants' allegations of health hazards of course are denied by the respondents. However, we do not want to decide this issue as of now because after drawal of the line and based on the clearances maintained it is for the appellants to allege and prove health hazards and if found genuine, they can press for compulsory acquisition of the land and buildings and claim compensation. Therefore, the respondents should keep in mind the chances of their eventually meeting compensation for the land and building, if the residents beneath the line prove to the W.A. 56,61&62/2011 3 satisfaction of the court that the lines cause health hazards. Writ Appeals are dismissed with the above observations. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms