This single judgment jointly disposed of three writ petitions challenging orders permitting the establishment of high-tension power lines on petitioners' properties. The High Court held that it could not sit in appeal over the impugned administrative orders and dismissed the petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/26TH POUSHA 1933
WPC.No. 21210 of 2011 (A)
PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
RESPONDENTS:
R2-R4 BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI. P.V. ELIAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NOS. 20937 & 26474 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC.No. 21210 of 2011
: 2 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P6
EXT.P8
EXT.P12
EXT.P13
EXT.P14
WPC.No. 21210 of 2011
: 3 :
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
WPC.No. 21210 of 2011
: 4 :
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rv
B.P. RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 21210,20937 & 26474 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 2:
the proposal of the Power Grid Corporation is to tap the existing line at two points near petitioners' properties and to draw the line dividing into two circuits to the sub station proposed at Elappully which is about 25 kms away from the tap point. Instead of a single straight line route of 15 kms in which both circuits can be drawn together, the Power Grid proposes to draw two lines each having 24 Kms of length to the same sub station. The properties are suffering the existing lines along with 45 meters Corridor and the present proposal will bring another two corridors of 45 meters each. The drawing of two new lines will make the properties absolutely useless which is planted with hybrid varieties of mango trees which is the livelihood of the petitioners. Three huge towers are also proposed to install in the properties for which 15 cents of land shall be utilised for each.
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 3:
kms approximately. LILO scheme in long transmission line was adopted for the very purpose of developing an intermediate connectivity to a new Sub Station/load centre. It is alo submitted that existing 400 KV double circuit transmission line from Udumalpet to Thrissur was chosen for tapping through LILO arrangements for making a new 400 KV Sub Station at Palakkad to meet the growing power demand of Palakkad and neighbouring areas. Based on the approval accorded by the Government of India for any new transmission project, after consultation with the concerned State Government, the respondent Corporation explore to identify the requisite land in proximity to the existing 220 KV sub stations of the electricity board/load centre. The selection of the land at Elappully (Palakkad) is purely in cognizance of a most techno-economic location closer to the load centre of Palakkad, which exists at Kanjikode. Thus, length of 220 KV lines from the 400 KV sub stations to 220 KV Sub Station load point has to be short. Minimising length of number of 220 KV lines benefits inconsiderable reduction in right of way and facilitates reduction in transmission losses. He further submits that the contention of the petitioners that the place opted to construct the Sub Station at Elappully was made with a mala
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 4:
fide intention is baseless and not factual. The respondent Corporation taking into account most techno-economical feasibility and also the terrain as well as the dwellings situated in the said route has opted to construct the Sub Station at Elappully. The selection of tapping point at Chulliyar between tower numbers 198 and 199 of existing 400 KV Udumalpet-Thrissur double circuit transmission line is taking into account all technical aspects based on technical requirements. Hence,
decision reported in Valsamma Thomas v. Addl. District
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 5:
Magistrate (1997(2) KLT 979) in which it is directed that the ADM has to exercise the discretion judicially and to pass order under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act, after hearing the parties and after taking such evidence as is required with regard to the objections raised. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2010 (1) KHC 918 (DB) - Sukukumaran P.G. v. Power Grid Corporation Ltd., the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“7. The word 'post' is defined in Section 3(5) of the Telegraph Act. The 'post' means a post, pole, standard, stay, strut or other above ground contrivance for carrying, suspending or supporting a telegraph line. Therefore, posts and towers are intended to support a telegraph line. Due to the fact that as in this case a 400 KV electric line is proposed, a tower is required to be constructed for supporting the line. As contemplated by the Telegraph Act and referred to above, it can be seen that the ownership of the land where such a tower is erected still continues to vest with the owner and it is only the right of user of the same that is vested with the Corporation and even as a result of the construction of the tower if the land owner cannot do anything in the said portion of the land occupies by tower, necessarily he will have to be paid hundred percent compensation which the apellant/petitioner is entitled to. It is open to the appellant herein to place all relevant materials and claim that there is hundred percent diminution in land value and claim compensation for the same and if he is not satisfied with the compensation determined,he can approach the District Court by filing an Electricity OP. As regards the objection that is raised against the drawing of the electric line, it is the District Magistrate to decide the same. Thus disputes centering round the compensation payable for diminution of the land value or trees cut if any, awarded by the Tahsildar can be raised before the District Court by filing an Electricity OP as
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 6:
provided for under Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act. But if there is any objection regarding the drawing of electric line, the District Magistrate will decide the same. Therefore, the appellant has got ample remedy to vindicate his grievance under the provisions of the Telegraph Act before the appropriate forum.
judgments relied on by both the counsels. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate as he was passed the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 7:
B.P. RAY, J.
W.P.(C) No. 21210, 20937 & 26474 of 2011 : 8:
O.P.No. 13887 of 2002
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2012.
JUDGMENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining to interfere with the impugned orders of the Additional District Magistrate permitting the power line.
Whether this Court can sit in appeal over orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate after affording opportunities of hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Valsamma Thomas v. Addl. District MagistrateReferred¶8
(1997(2) KLT 979)
Sukukumaran P.G. v. Power Grid Corporation Ltd.Followed¶8
2010 (1) KHC 918 (DB)
O.H.Abduk Sukkur
Sheik Beevi
Smt C Seea
Additional District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, Civil Station, Collectorate, Palakkad
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
Deputy Chief Manager, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
B.P. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
