IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 34 of 2011(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O.GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR CHITHNAYA, KONDAZHI P.O.,THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THRISSUR 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B.,CHELAKKARA 3. MARIAMMA (LISIE) D/O.KURIAKOSE,KAMBAZHAYATTU VEEDU, KONDAZHI,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THISSUR TALUK ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC FOR KSEB FOR R2 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.34/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.12.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.C4/SR/ET/115/2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE DATE OF DESPATCH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED ON 6.1.2011 BY S.BABURAJ, SURVEY OFFICER, (RETD), SURVEY & LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS (6 IN NUMBER) SHOWING THE DRAWAL OF LINE ACROSS THE RUBBER PLANTATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND. EXT.P6. ORIGINAL OF LTHE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERNATE AND MOST FEASIBLE ROUTE CAUSING NO DAMAGE EITHER TO THE BENEFICIARY OR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6(a). ORIGINAL OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE ALTERNATE AND MOST FEASIBLE ROUTE CAUSING NO DAMAGE EITHER TO THE BENEFICIARY OR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7. ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SPOTS WHERE FIVE ELECTRIC POST CAN BE ERECTED. EXT.P8. ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PLANTAIN GROWTH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): A DETAILED SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE ROUTE AND ALTERNATE ROUTE SUGGESTED BY THE PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur on 20.12.2010 permitting the Kerala State Electricity Board to draw electricity line through the land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of providing electricity connection to the residence of the third respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The third respondent applied for a fresh electricity connection to the Assistant Engineer of the concerned Electrical Section. When steps were taken to draw the line through the land belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner objected. In view of that objection the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the second respondent herein, moved the Additional District Magistrate under section 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act for permission to draw the line through the land belonging to the petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate thereupon issued notice to the parties. The petitioner entered W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 -:2:- appearance and filed Ext.P1 objections dated 21.12.2009. She contended inter alia that the line can be drawn through the southern side of the land belonging to the applicant herself and therefore it is not necessary to draw the line through the land belonging to any one else. She also contended that if the line is drawn through her lands, 20 rubber trees and 3 teak trees will have to be cut and removed. 3. Before the Additional District Magistrate, the Assistant Executive Engineer submitted two proposals. The first proposal was to draw the line through the public road and from there through the property of the petitioner. The second proposal was to draw the line through the land belonging to the Irrigation Department and the Revenue Department. The Additional District Magistrate inspected the locality on 15.9.2010 in the presence of the Assistant Executive Engineer. The alternate proposal was ruled out on the ground that a major portion of the alternate route is a rocky area and it also supports thick vegetation and therefore, the Kerala State Electricity Board will not be in a position to draw and maintain the line. The Additional District Magistrate W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 -:3:- accordingly permitted the Kerala State Electricity Board to draw the line through the first route, namely, through the land belonging to the petitioner. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Additional District Magistrate did not examine the proposal submitted by the petitioner in Ext.P1 objection, that the line can be drawn conveniently through the land belonging to the beneficiary herself. 4. The respondents have been served. The second respondent Assistant Executive Engineer has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the alternate route proposed by the petitioner is not feasible for the reason that it is rocky and supports thick vegetation. The third respondent beneficiary has however, not chosen to enter appearance. 4. I heard Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned senior counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to Ext.P1 objections filed W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 -:4:- by the petitioner and Ext.P6(a) sketch produced along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner that the Additional District Magistrate or the Board did not examine the feasibility of drawing the electricity line from the southern portion of the land belonging to the beneficiary. The learned counsel contended that if a line can be drawn through the property of the beneficiary herself, howsoever inconvenient or costly it is, then there is no reason to burden the property of another. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board submitted that a major portion of the alignment, which was accepted by the Additional District Magistrate, passes through a public road and the line crosses the property of the petitioner only for a distance of 90 metres. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P1 objections it is stated that an electricity line can be conveniently drawn from the southern side of the land belonging to the beneficiary herself. The Additional District Magistrate, however, did not consider the said proposal though a local inspection was W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 -:5:- conducted on 15.9.2010. Ext.P6(a) sketch produced along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, indicates that two posts are already in existence adjacent to the southern boundary of the land belonging to the third respondent. From the sketch it is evident that an electricity line can be conveniently drawn along the western boundary of the land belonging to the beneficiary herself. The Board has no case that the line cannot be drawn from the southern side of the property belonging to the third respondent. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that the Board should have provided electricity connection by drawing the line from the southern side of the land belonging to the third respondent along its western boundary. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. The Kerala State Electricity Board and its officers, including the second respondent, shall provide electricity connection to the beneficiary (the third respondent) by drawing the line from the electricity post situate adjacent to the south-western side of the land belonging to the beneficiary as shown in Ext.P6(a) sketch W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 -:6:- after calling upon the third respondent to deposit the expenses required in that regard. The line shall be drawn and energised within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereupon the electricity line already drawn through the petitioner's land shall be dismantled. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.34 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th September, 2011