Dismissed

M.I.George v. Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016WP(C)/6264/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to install a transformer without blocking a parking area and to stop alleged encroachment on river land. The Judge held that the proposed transformer installation is a civil dispute regarding land usage, which this Court cannot adjudicate when the respondent has the right to choose the installation site. Similarly, the river land issue was rem

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for directions and orders was rejected.

M.I.George Vs Kannan Devan Hills Plantation… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6264 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

M.I.GEORGE,

¶8

ARCHANA RESIDENCY, M.S.A ROAD, MUNNAR, DIST. IDUKKI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.MURUKESH REGHU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PLANTATION COMPANY LTD., MUNNAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, K.D.H.P HOUSE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI 685 612.

¶12

2. THE MANAGER, ENGINEERING, K.D.H.P HOUSE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI 685 612.

¶13

3. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R4 & R5 IMPLEADED

¶15

4. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKY - 685 612.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, S. C R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶18

ADDITIONAL R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 IN I.A.NO.3964 OF 2016.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Msd.

¶21

WP(C).No. 6264 of 2016 (G)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1: A PHOTO COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 23-03-2015.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2: A PHOTO COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 2356/02 OF S.R.O DEVIKULAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3: A PHOTO COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19-09-2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT 1.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4: A PHOTO COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-08-2008.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5: A PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 16-08-2008.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6: A PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 31-05-2013 TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: A PHOTO COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30-10-2015 IN W.P(C).NO.32479/2015.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8: THE PHOTO PRINTS WHICH DISPLAY THE SAID PARKING AREA BEING USED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P9: PHOTO PRINTS TAKEN ON 16-02-2016 SHOWING FENCING WORK.

¶33

EXHIBIT P10: A PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17-02-2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P11: THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSFORMER IN THE ADJACENT PLOT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶41

============= W.P. (C) No. 6264 of 2016

¶42

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

¶43

Dated this, the 7^th day of June, 2016

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to install a transformer in the premises of the petitioner in compliance with the directions in Ext.P7 judgment without blocking the entry to and exit from the parking place being used by the petitioner and also for a direction to respondents 4 to 6 to prevent the act of encroachment of Government land in the river puramboku in old Munnar area.

¶46

The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would show that the petitioner claims to have constructed a building in 10 cents of land comprised in K.D.H. Village of Devikulam Taluk. Since the petitioner has been experiencing fall in the voltage of electricity, he required installation of transformer in his premises. He submitted an application dated 17/5/2008 to the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent by letter dated 14/8/2008 sanctioned installation of the transformer. Petitioner remitted the necessary fee. It is stated that petitioner approached this Court by

¶47

W.P(C) No.6264/16

¶48

-:2:-

¶49

filing WP(C) No. 32479/2015, when there is a delay in installation of the transformer. By judgment dated 30/10/2015, this Court directed the respondents to install a new transformer sub station in the premises of the petitioner pursuant to the sanction granted in the matter. Time limit was also specified. It is submitted by the petitioner that attempt of respondents 1 and 2 is to install a transformer by blocking the entry and exit to the parking area in front of the resort that is being used by the petitioner since the very beginning.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submits that petitioner was using certain land belonging to the company as parking area and the transformer was installed in the said area after fencing the same. It is submitted that no inconvenience is caused to the petitioner as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner however would submit that the petitioner will suffer substantial loss and damage on account of the fact that the parking of the vehicles will be disturbed.

¶51

Taking into consideration the fact that respondents 1 and 2 have a right to install transformer at the place of their choice and when the work is being continued, it is not open for

¶52

W.P(C) No.6264/16

¶53

-:3:-

¶54

the petitioner to challenge the same in this proceedings. Petitioner apparently requested for installation of a transformer and when it is being done, he cannot object by raising other grounds merely for the reason that the petitioner was parking certain vehicles in an area which belonged to the respondents. There is nothing wrong in the respondents fencing the area as well. Even otherwise, those are all civil disputes where factual issues arise for consideration and are not matters to be adjudicated by this Court.

¶55

Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to pass any orders as prayed for. In regard to the contention that the river puramboke is being utilized by the respondents 1 and 2, such issues cannot be adjudicated by this Court and the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for appropriate reliefs.

¶56

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶59

Rp7/06/2016

¶60

//True Copy//

¶61

P.S to Judge

M.I.George v. Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.George v. Kannan Devan Hills Plantation Company Ltd.

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

M/S.Arts & Cini House Vs State of Kerala & Others

Major K.Bhaskaran Nair (Retired) Vs State of Kerala

Vijayalekshmi Vs the Manager, Kollam District Co-Operative Bank

Dr.Joseph Issac Vs Bhanu Pratap Sharma

Josekutty Joseph Vs the State Bank of Travancore

Thankamma Janakiamma Vs Idbi Bank Ltd., Retail Assets Centre, Kochi