IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10976 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A. DIVAKARAN, AGED 82 YEARS, PARATHITTAMODI, VALLANA, KURICHUMUTTOM P.O., IYDAYARMULA, ARANMULA. *(DIED) *ADDITIONAL PETITIONER IMPLEADED: AMMINI DIVAKARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE DIVAKARAN, PARATHITTAMODI, KURICHUMUTTAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. *ADDL. PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/1/11 IN I.A. 12924/10. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. JAGATHAMMA, PARATHITTA MOTIYIL VEEDU, VALLANA MURI, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. MADUSOODANAN, PARATHITTA MOTIYIL VEEDU, VALLANA MURI, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. W.P.(C).NO.10976/2008-F: 4. RAJAN, PARATHITTA MOTIYIL VEEDU, VALLANA MURI, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. SHOBA, PARATHITTA MOTIYIL VEEDU, VALLANA MURI, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. REGHUNATHAN, PARATHITTA MOTIYIL VEEDU, VALLANA MURI, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY SRI. M. DINESH, S.C, K.W.A, R2 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI, SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.10976/2008-F: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/03/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONCERNED BLOCK OFFICER BEARING AN ENDORSEMENT DTD. 18/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER, VALLANA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30/01/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. SEEKING WATER CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.P.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P.3. APPLICATION. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DTD. 10/08/2005 AND THE SKETCH SUBMITTED IN O.S. 236/2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN I.A. 854/2005 IN O.S. 236/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD. 16/09/09 ISSUED BY THE ARANMULA GRAMA PANCHAYATH EVIDENCING THE DEATH OF DIVAKARAN. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DTD. 22/09/1998 ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10976 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The controversy in this writ petition is concerning the claim of the petitioners for drawing pipeline for supply of water by the Kerala Water Authority to their residential premises. Petitioner applied for water connection. However the line is to be drawn through the property of respondents 2 to 6. Although the proposal was to draw line through underground, that was objected by the party respondents and hence the Water Authority was unable to provide water connection. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed. 2. While the counsel for the petitioners referred to Ext.P5, the commissioner's report filed in O.S.236/05 pending before the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta between the parties and contended that the proposed line is the only one line available for drawing the line, learned W.P.(C) No. 10976 OF 2008 :2 : counsel for the party respondent contended that through the western boundary of the property of one Rajamma, the line could be drawn conveying to the petitioner's property. In other words, according to the party respondents, there is an alternate alignment through which the line could be drawn. 3. If as stated by the party respondents there is an alternate feasible alignment available there is no reason why the respondents property should be made use of for drawing line. However, feasibility of that alternate line is a matter to be inspected by the first respondent and only if he is satisfied, can the party respondents insist that line should be drawn through such alignment. In that view of the matter I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment the first respondent will examine the feasibility of the alternate alignment accepted by the party respondents and if the alignment is found to be feasible, W.P.(C) No. 10976 OF 2008 :3 : pipeline to the premises of the petitioner will be drawn through such alignment. On the other hand, if the alignment is found to be not feasible it is directed that it will be open to the first respondent to draw line through the original alignment through underground. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge