IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 3746 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SHANMUGHANANDA SANGHAM, THANTHONNITHURUTHU, MULAVUKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 018. 2. MANI PURUSHAN, W/O.PURUSHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, THANNONITHURUTHU, MULAVUKAD, PIN-682 504. 3. T.P.VIDHYAN, S/O.P.PARAMU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, THANNONITHURUTHU, MULAVUKAD, PIN-682 504. ADD.R4 - K.K.SOMAN, “KARINCHET”, PACHALAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682 018, IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.8.2011 IN I.A.NO. 3004/2011. ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R4 SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE FOR R2 & R3 SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB FOR R1 SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20851 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3746 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO THE K.S.E.B. DATED 23.7.2010. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO THE K.S.E.B. DATED 05.08.2010. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED TO THE K.S.E.B. DATED 26.8.2010. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 18.6.2009. EXT.R2(a)- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B. TO SMT.MANI PURUSHAN DATED 23.7.2010. EXT.R2(b) - A TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT ISSUED BY K.S.E.B. TO SMT. THILOTHAMA PARAMU DATED 2.8.2010. EXT.R2(c) - A TRUE COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE K.S.E.B. TO SRI.VIDHYAN DATED 23.7.2010. EXT.R2(d) - A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADUTHALA, KOCHI. EXT.R4(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.2.2011 PASSED BY THE ADM, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R4(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.6.2009 PASSED BY THE SDM, ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ rka P.S. to Judge. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 3746 & 20851 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.20851 of 2011. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.3746 of 2011 applied for electricity connection to their respective residences. When the officers of the Board proposed to draw the line through the petitioner's property, the petitioner objected by submitting Ext.P1 representation dated 23.7.2010 before the Assistant Executive Engineer. Over-ruling the petitioner's objection, the Board and its officers drew the line across the land belonging to the petitioner. Two weeks later, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation dated 5.8.2010 to remove the line already drawn. Later, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 26.8.2010, once again requesting the Assistant 2 W.P.(C)Nos.3746/2 011 & 20851/2011 Executive Engineer to remove the line already drawn. Though the line had been drawn, it was not energised. In view of the objection raised by the petitioner, the Addl. District Magistrate, Ernakulam issued Ext.P4 notice in W.P.(C) No.3746 of 2011 inviting the parties to appear for a hearing held on 28.12.2010. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 appeared for the hearing. They were heard and a local inspection was also conducted. By Ext.P5 order passed on 18.2.2011, the Addl.District Magistrate over-ruled the objection raised by the petitioner and permitted the Board to draw the line as originally proposed. The said order is under challenge in these writ petitions. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that there is a dispute between him and the neighbouring land owners, that he has instituted two suits O.S.Nos. 1112 of 2007 and 394 of 2008 in the Court of Munsiff of Ernakulam to fix the eastern boundary of his property, that the said suits were decreed in part on 23.7.2009 by Ext. P5 judgment, that the said judgment has not attained 3 W.P.(C)Nos.3746/2 011 & 20851/2011 finality and in that view of the matter, unless the boundary is identified and boundary stones are laid, the electricity line cannot be drawn. The petitioner submits that though the line can be drawn through the eastern boundary of the petitioner's land, until the eastern boundary is identified and demarcated by laying boundary stones, the line should not be drawn. In my opinion, that cannot be a reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.20851 of 2011 in view of the undertaking given by the beneficiaries that, if later, after the eastern boundary of the petitioner's land is identified and demarcated, the petitioner is desirous of shifting the line to the eastern boundary, they are willing to meet the expenses for such shifting. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Board submitted that respondents 2 and 3 (beneficiaries) have also filed an affidavit to that effect before the Assistant Executive Engineer. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is 4 W.P.(C)Nos.3746/2 011 & 20851/2011 evident from the pleadings in W.P.(C) Nos.20851 of 2011 and 3746 of 2011 that the petitioner's main grievance is that the line should be drawn only along the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the neighbouring land owners as regards the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property. Though the suit was partly decreed in favour of the petitioner, the boundary is yet to be identified and demarcated in execution of that decree. In my opinion, that cannot be a reason to interfere with the permission now granted by the Additional District Magistrate to draw the electricity line through the petitioner's property. In view of the undertaking given by respondents 2 and 3 that they are willing to meet the expenses for shifting the line as and when the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property is identified and demarcated in execution of the decree, I am of the opinion that the interests of all the parties can be safeguarded by reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the Electricity Board for shifting of the electricity line after 5 W.P.(C)Nos.3746/2 011 & 20851/2011 the decree in his favour is executed and the eastern boundary of his property is identified. I accordingly dispose of W.P.(C) Nos.3746 of 2011 and 20851 of 2011 with a direction that after the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property is identified and demarcated in execution of the decree passed in O.S.Nos.1112 of 2007 and 394 of 2008, it will be open to the petitioner to move the competent authority in the Kerala State Electricity Board to have the electricity line passing through its property shifted to the eastern boundary and the Board shall, upon such a request being made, shift the line to the eastern boundary of the petitioner's property. Respondents 2 and 3 shall meet the expenses for such shifting as undertaken by them in the affidavit filed before the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE rka 6 W.P.(C)Nos.3746/2 011 & 20851/2011