IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32682 of 2005(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SANKARAMANGGALATHU VIJAYA PALACE, NJALBHAGAM MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI PILLAI, SANKARAMANGALATHU VIJAYA PALACE, NJALBHAGAM MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, POOVAMTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION SUB DIVISION, POOVAMTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, K.S.E.B., KOTTARAKKARA. 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32682/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 8TH NOVEMBER, 1991 IN A NEWS PAPER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.41 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.44 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF TREES CUT AND REMOVED FROM PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXT.P3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF TREES CUT AND REMOVED FROM PETITIONERS PROPERTY. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.LA.663/98 DT 20.1.2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.LA.706/98 DT 20.1.2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.DB5/2001-02/353 DT 15.9.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE B5-150/02.MISC DT 28.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE RESPONDENT AND DEMAND DRAFT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 13.10.2005 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B5/150/02/PALAVAKA DT 25.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TO THE PETITIONERS. EXTS OF R1 EXT.R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 26.3.98 ISSUED BY ASST.ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 4.4.98 ISSUED BY THE ASST.ENGINEER. WPC NO.32682/05 -2- EXT.R1(c): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 27.9.1999 ISSUED BY THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3.10.99 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BOARD. EXT.R1(e): A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 23.11.99 ISSUED BY AEE TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32682 OF 2005 (N) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T In 1991, Ext.P1 notice was published by the respondents informing about the proposal to draw an 110 KV line and requesting the general public to facilitate the same. Petitioners submit that without knowing about the proposal to draw the line, an existing building available in the alignment was converted into a school building. It is stated that when they were informed of the proposal as reflected in Ext.P1, they discontinued the work. They were later issued Exts.P5 and P6 communications requesting them to remit an amount of Rs.1,56,518/-, which according to the petitioners was the cost incurred by the Board for increasing the height of the tower and the line. Although that was challenged before the Civil Court by filing OS 782/2001, the suit was dismissed. Finally, by Ext.P7, the amount was also remitted in 2005. Thereafter, they were asked to pay interest on the belated payment made by Ext.P7. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed. 2. Initially the contention raised was that the height of the WPC 32682/05 :2 : tower was increased by the respondents unilaterally and that the petitioners cannot be made liable for either the amount remitted as per Ext.P7 or any interest thereof. However, a reading of Ext.R1(d) letter of the petitioners produced along with the counter affidavit shows that it was at the request of the petitioners that the height of the tower was increased and in this letter, the petitioners have undertaken to bear the expenditure involved in this behalf. If that be the factual position, respondents cannot be faulted for the demand they made in Exts.P5 and P6. If that be so, the prayer to refund the amount deposited as per Ext.P7 is only to be rejected. 3. Ext.R1(d) letter is of 1999 and demand made by Exts.P5 and P6 show that the amount became due in 1999 itself. Ext.P7 shows that the amount was remitted only on 13/10/2005. If that be so, necessarily, the petitioners are bound to pay interest on the belated payment at the rate as prescribed by the Board. 4. However, counsel for the petitioners submit that for drawing the line, yielding trees standing in the property were cut and the compensation due has not still been released. On this basis, counsel submits that the amount due to the petitioners WPC 32682/05 :3 : towards compensation should be set off towards the claim now made by the Board. This prayer of the petitioners is quite reasonable and has to be allowed particularly for the reason that even the respondents have no case that the compensation amount has been released to the petitioner. Now that the compensation amount is still available with the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the amount due from the petitioners towards interest for the belated payment of the amount as demanded by Exts.P5 and P6, shall be adjusted from the compensation amount and interest, if any due to the petitioner, and the balance if any, can be demanded and will be paid. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp