IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4656 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ IGNATIOUS MUNRO, MARY SADANAM, POTTAYIL, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, T.C. SUB DIVISION, GIS BUILDING, (NEAR LA. COMPLEX), VIKAS BHAVAN P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. R1, R2 R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.4656/08 PETIITONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES THROUGH WHICH THE PROPSOED ELECTRIC LINE TO THE EXTENT IT COVERS THEPROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18.4.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FIELD BY THE 3RD REPSONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DRAWN BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.41740/07/S1 DATED 26.9.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE ROUTE APPROVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMET DATED 30.11.2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).34687/07. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S1-86936/07 DATED 7.1.2008. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ALC RE-SURVEY, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMETN CONTAINING DETAILS OF THE SUB DIVISION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN THE 19 THIRUPPURAM VILLAGE, AGAIN ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, ALC RE- SURVEY, NEYYATTINKARA. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4656 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Following Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner was heard and Ext.P10 order was issued. That is challenged without impleading persons at Sl.Nos.4 to 15 among those listed at the foot of Ext.P10, who appear to be persons who had raised objections to the drawl of the line. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner confined the submissions to state that the only complaint is that route No.1 shown as R-1 running towards the northern aspect of the area, as disclosed in Ext.P1, was suppressed from the District Magistrate while Ext.P10 order was issued. The District Magistrate, while exercising powers under the Statute, has stated in the 4th paragraph of Ext.P10 that on inspecting the site and the surrounding areas, it was found that there was no vacant puramboke land available to draw the line as alleged by the petitioners. This finding is criticized by stating that the route R- 1 in Ext.P1 runs predominantly over Government land. WPC.4656/08 2 2. In the aforesaid circumstance, even if the petitioner has any complaint as aforesaid, which could be sustained on enquiry, the same can be done by the District Magistrate conducting a personal inspection of the site to ascertain whether R-1 is a route which could be considered as feasible and whether it lies predominantly over Government land. If any person holding private property under that alignment has any objection to such drawl of line through R-1, it is unnecessary to re-open the case on that ground since the impugned order cannot be set aside as a whole, particularly when the parties who faced that order are not before this Court. Therefore, while affirming Ext.P10, it is directed that the District Magistrate will consider the matter as aforedirected and decide whether any change in alignment could be made without any objection from any quarter. If there is any objection raised by any private individual to the drawl of line through R-1 route, no modification to Ext.P10 is called for. A decision as aforedirected shall be rendered within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment since the nature of the alignment calls for its immediate laying. The WPC.4656/08 3 District Magistrate will also ensure that if lines have already been drawn through the major portion of any alignment, the same need not be disturbed even on the strength of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.