GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P3 order passed by first respondent. The circumstances under which Ext. P3 happened to be passed are in short, as follows: Third respondent wanted to have electric line drawn to her house across the property belonging to the petitioner. After wiring her building she was waiting for electric connection to her house by drawing line. According to the officers of the Electricity Board, the shortest route through which electric line could be drawn to the house of third respondent is across the petitioner's land. Since the petitioner did not accord sanction for the said purpose third respondent moved Ext. P1 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad. A copy of the same was sent to first respondent as well. The Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board filed a statement before the Collector that there exists a permanent foot path to third respondent's property across the land of the petitioner and that electric line can be drawn along the said footpath and that will be the shortest line. He also reported that the petitioner's land being paddy field, no tree will have to be cut. According to him, the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioner would entail cutting of trees and that line will have to pass across properties belonging to others. Petitioner in his turn approached the first respondent against the drawing of line across his property. He stated that he is having an idea to put up a residential building and electric line if drawn will be a hindrance to the building. He also stated that line if drawn will be a permanent danger to the building which is about to be constructed.

(2.) The District Collector after considering the relative contentions raised by the petitioner on the one hand and third respondent and the Assistant Executive Engineer on the other, came to the conclusion that there exists a permanent pathway across the petitioner's property to reach the house of third respondent and that electric line is to be allowed to be drawn along that pathway which is the shortest route. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers under S.12 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter referred to as the 'Electricity Act' and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, hereinafter referred to as 'the Telegraph Act' the District Collector overruled the objections raised by the petitioner and allowed electric line to be drawn across his property to give electric connection to third respondent. Hence this Original Petition.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer. The averments made therein are to the following effect. Petitioner's property is a paddy field. There is an electric supply line through the pathway which is on the eastern side of the petitioner's property. That supply line is to be extended through the same open pathway and then energy supplied to the house of third respondent. If the line is so drawn, no loss, damage or hazard will be caused to the property of the petitioner. Nor will the value of the property be diminished. Paddy cultivation will not be affected by drawing service line of 230 volts. For approaching third respondent's property there exists two alternate routes. One through the pathway of the petitioner's paddy field and the other by cutting across 2 or three parambas with residences. The only technically feasible and shortest route for drawing electric supply line to third respondent's property is through the paddy field of the petitioner in as much as no tree is to be cut and no clearance need be maintained. The existence of the pathway was noticed at the time of inspection of the property by the District Collector Ext. P3 order was passed on 4-11-1988 and the line drawn and energised on 14-11-1988. Therefore, the Original Petition has become infructuous and it has only to be dismissed.