Dismissed

Alphonsa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2012WP(C)/28489/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction preventing obstruction to her pathway by the respondents during electricity tower construction. The admitted fact that the tower was already constructed led the Court to dismiss the petition, noting compensation remains an open claim.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is left to claim compensation as per law from the respondents.

Alphonsa Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/19TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 28489 of 2011 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ALPHONSA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.JOHNSON, CHIRATAYIL HOUSE, KORATTY, KALLUR P.O, 680 317.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH SMT.S.SREELAKSHMY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001.

¶11

2. THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA, MADAKKATHARA PO, THRISSUR. REP BY THE CHAIRMAN.PIN- 680 304.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

WP(C)NO.28489/2011

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF OTHE PETITION DT.22.10.2011

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.R2COPY OF THE REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

B.P.RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶26

W.P.(C)No.28489 OF 2011

¶27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board.

¶30

The main prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing the second respondents not to cause obstruction to the immediate enjoyment of the pathway of the petitioner while proceeding with the construction of an electricity tower on the northern side of the pathway belong to the petitioner.

¶31

I have perused the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner wherein it is specifically stated that the construction of the tower is over.

¶32

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interefere with this matter at this stage. However, it is open to the petitioner to claim compensation as per law from the respondents.

¶33

Accordingly, I dismiss this writ petition.

¶34

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶35

jes

Alphonsa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alphonsa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Jamaludheen Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Dominic Pereira Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

P.S.Stephen Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Vasanthi Vs the District Collector & Others

K.Natarajan Assary Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Dhaneshkumar Vs State of Kerala