Mathukutty Savier Vs. K.S.E.B

Mathukutty Savier vs K.S.E.B

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 20, 2012

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1009591

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1009591
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim
Decided On: Dec 20, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mathukutty Savier

Respondent

K.S.E.B

Excerpt

.....drawing of the line through the pathway situated in the property of the petitioner was permitted.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. after considering factual wp(c). 25291 /2012 3 situations prevailing and after conducting site inspection, the 8th respondent had compared feasibility of both the routes suggested. he had also obtained report from the village officer as well as considered report filed by an advocate commissioner in a civil suit. on comparing feasibility of both the routes, the 8th respondent found that the most feasible, shortest and less expensive route is through the pathway situated in the property of the petitioner. no materials have been produced to show that the decision taken by the 8th respondent is in any manner illegal, erroneous, improper or unreasonable. i am of the opinion that, if the fact finding authority had arrived at a conclusion on evaluating all the circumstances prevailing, interference by this court is not at all warranted, unless it is established that the order in question is illegal or totally improper and unreasonable or the same is in any manner perverse. in the case at hand after considering the comparative hardship which will be caused by drawing of the line, and also after comparing the feasibility for drawing of the line, the competent authority had taken, a just and correct decision. accordingly the writ petition fails and the wp(c). 25291 /2012 4 same is dismissed.4. however, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to draw the line through the extreme southern side of the pathway in question in a manner without causing any obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. they may also consider drawing of insulated line, if any hindrance is caused to the existing water tank or grown up trees situated in the property of the petitioner. c.k.abdul rehim, judge pmn/ wp(c). 25291 /2012 5

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 29TH AGRAHAYANA 193 WP(C).No. 25291 of 2012 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MATHUKUTTY XAVIER, S/O. XAVIER, THACHEDATH HOUSE, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685508.

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF KSEB, VANDANMEDU, KATTAPPANA-685508.

3. SREEDHARAN, CHORIKKAYIL HOUSE, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685506.

4. BOSE, MUGALNILAYIL HOUSE, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685506.

5. RENJI, NANMANASSERY HOUSE, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685506.

6. CHACKO @ BOBBY , MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685506.

7. MATHAI, VADASSERI HOUSE, CHETTUKUZHY KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685506.

8. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KUYILUMALA, COLLECTORTE, IDUKKI685501. R1 & R2 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,S.C.,K.S.E.B. R3 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS WP(C).No. 25291 of 2012 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED IN OS 249/2004 DTD.17.8.2006. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.156/2009 DTD.27.8.09 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER DTD.26.8.2010 IN E1.NO.35682/2009. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OLD BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH DTD.12.9.2012. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN E10-35682/2009 DTD.16.10.2012. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH DTD.20.10.2012. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE PETITION AND ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DTD.11.10.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08 09.2009 FILED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KATTAPPANA BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(B) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17 04.2012 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. /TRUE COPY / NS P.A. TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 25291 of 2012 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012 JUDGMENT Ext.P6 order issued by the 8th respondent in exercise of power vested under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with section 164 of the Electricity Act 2003, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner objected drawing of electric line for providing connection to the 3rd respondent. The authorities of the Electricity Board proposed two routes for drawing of the line. One of the routes is through a pathway situated in the property of the petitioner. The line proposed is to be drawn from a post existing in the pathway by drawing 65 meters overhead line. The second proposal submitted is to draw the line from a post situated in Amayar-Kambammedu Road by crossing the property of the 7th respondent. It is found during inspection that for drawing of the line through the second route there is a length of 100 meters. The petitioner raised objection to the effect that if the line is drawn through the pathway situated in his property it will cause damage to the WP(C). 25291 /2012 2 existing trees and agricultural operations. Another contention raised is that the petitioner is intending to construct a multi storied building and in such case the electric line will cause danger because the line will be situated very near to the construction.

2. The 8th respondent found that the alternate proposal has to cross the property of the 7th respondent and it is a lengthy route. It is further found that drawing of the line through the first route proposed will not cause any obstruction to the existing house of the petitioner. The 8th respondent found that the route suggested through the pathway situated in the property of the petitioner is most feasible and shortest as well as less expensive. It is also found that the contention regarding obstruction which will be caused to the future construction is not sustainable. Hence drawing of the line through the pathway situated in the property of the petitioner was permitted.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. After considering factual WP(C). 25291 /2012 3 situations prevailing and after conducting site inspection, the 8th respondent had compared feasibility of both the routes suggested. He had also obtained report from the Village Officer as well as considered report filed by an advocate Commissioner in a civil suit. On comparing feasibility of both the routes, the 8th respondent found that the most feasible, shortest and less expensive route is through the pathway situated in the property of the petitioner. No materials have been produced to show that the decision taken by the 8th respondent is in any manner illegal, erroneous, improper or unreasonable. I am of the opinion that, if the fact finding authority had arrived at a conclusion on evaluating all the circumstances prevailing, interference by this court is not at all warranted, unless it is established that the order in question is illegal or totally improper and unreasonable or the same is in any manner perverse. In the case at hand after considering the comparative hardship which will be caused by drawing of the line, and also after comparing the feasibility for drawing of the line, the competent authority had taken, a just and correct decision. Accordingly the writ petition fails and the WP(C). 25291 /2012 4 same is dismissed.

4. However, Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to draw the line through the extreme southern side of the pathway in question in a manner without causing any obstruction to the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. They may also consider drawing of insulated line, if any hindrance is caused to the existing water tank or grown up trees situated in the property of the petitioner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/ WP(C). 25291 /2012 5

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2012 Same Parties Mathukutty Savier vs K.S.E.B Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim