Allowed

Mohanan Pillai K v. the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016WP(C)/19374/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Additional District Magistrate's order rejecting his request to relocate an electric line passing through his property. The Court held that relocating the line without hindering public access is feasible. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to relocate the line according to a specific sketch.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order (Ext.P4) and direct Respondents 1 to 3 to relocate the electric line at points ADB as per Ext.P5, ensuring no hindrance to pathway access.

Mohanan Pillai K Vs the Additional District Magistrate… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19374 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHANAN PILLAI K,

¶8

AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,

¶9

RETIRED S.I., KERALA POLICE,

¶10

ERAVICHAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MEENATHUCHERY, KAVANAD PO. KOLLAM PIN 691003.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM 691003.

¶14

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, SAKTHIKULANGARA.691003.

¶15

3. THE ASSITANT ENGINEER, KSEB (ELECTRICAL SECTION) SAKTHIKULANGARA 691003.

¶16

4. MR. R. SARVESWARAN, ERAVICHAZHIKATHU VEEDU MEENATHUCHERY, KAVANAD PO. KOLLAM PIN 691003.

¶17

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.P.PRADEEP R2,R3 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC R4 BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.V.

¶20

WP(C).No. 19374 of 2016 (V)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 17.9.2015 AND 13.10.2015 ISSUED BY KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION , SAKTHIKULANGARA.
P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.10.2015 PREFERRED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M5-144/16/K.DIS DATED 29.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM,
P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.DB-20/AEE-ESD-SKLA/15- 16/370 DATED 18.03.2016 ALONG WITH SKETCH.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
R4(A)	A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED SHOP ROOM AND THE NARROW PATHWAY.
R4(B)	A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PATHWAY AND THE POSITION OF THE B POST.
R4(C)	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED /1/2016.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

=============== W.P. (C) No. 19374 of 2016

¶28

==================

¶29

Dated this, the 13^th day of October, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate exercising power under Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Petitioner requested for change of electric line which passes through his property inter alia contending that it could be taken through the side of the highway and through a public pathway so that the crossing of the line through his property can be avoided. The claim was objected by certain persons in the locality and one of such objection was that if such a line is relocated, it may affect the property of the 4^th respondent and also there will be difficulty in taking vehicles to and from the pathway in question. Petitioner places reliance upon a rough sketch prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer and submits that the request of the petitioner is for changing the line AB to either ADB or ACB.

¶32

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent inter alia submitting that if the line is drawn through the point C, the

¶33

W.P(C) No.19374/16

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

line will be crossing the property of the petitioner. Petitioner had made an illegal construction in the point D and he has no objection in putting a post at the point D provided, it will not affect easy ingress and egress to the pathway in question.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having perused the records, I am of the view that for relocating the existing line, if the post is put up in the national highway, it will not affect the ingress and egress to the pathway provided the post does not cross the pathway. Both sides agree that the post can be put up at the point D in such a way that the line is drawn through point ADB and without causing any hindrance to the pathway in question.

¶37

By Ext.P4, Additional District Magistrate rejected the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was ready and willing to remit the entire amount for relocating the line so that it shall not affect his residential building.

¶38

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I do so. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to relocate the line at points ADB as shown in Ext.P5 sketch. However, it is made clear that

¶39

W.P(C) No.19374/16

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

the post shall be put up in such a manner that it will not affect the

¶42

ingress and egress to the pathway in question.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶45

Rp13/10/2016

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

P.S to Judge

Mohanan Pillai K v. the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan Pillai K v. the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Geena George Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Sabu A.A Vs Commercial Tax Officer

P.N.Manoj Vs Authorised Officer

Sudheer Vs the University of Calicut

Ismail Ebrahim Kutty Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Appukuttan Nair Vs Bank of India