GOPALAKRISHNAN K. Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order dtd. 28/4/2025 issued by the 1st respondent directing the drawing of a 110 KV line through the middle of the petitioner's property. The petitioner is the son of the person in possession of 4.62 acres of land, which contains arecanut, coconut, and other plantations.

(2.) The 2nd respondent issued Ext. P1 notice to the petitioner's late brother under Sec. 164 read with Sec. 185(2)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is stated in the notice that the buildings and standing trees situated in R.S. Nos. 143 and 148 of Kolathur Village would be removed for the construction of the 110 KV DC line to Kuttikkole Sub-station within seven days from the date of the notice. It is further stated that the extent of compensation for the damage would be assessed and paid through the officers of the Board. Along with the notice, Ext. P2, a list of particulars of the trees and crops proposed to be cut and removed from the property, was attached. The petitioner's brother submitted Ext. P3 objection to the 1 st respondent under Sec. 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act, along with a sketch showing an alternative route for drawing the 110 KV line. If the proposed route is adopted, the property would be divided into two and rendered practically useless, and no residential building could be constructed. On the other hand, the alternative route would not cause any damage to the petitioner's property, would not involve any additional financial commitment to the 2nd respondent, and there are no crops or residential houses along the suggested route.

(3.) Since no action was taken on the objection submitted, the petitioner's brother filed W.P.(C) No. 38273 of 2004 before this Hon'ble Court. By Ext. P6 judgment dtd. 5/11/2024, this Court directed the 1 st respondent to dispose of Ext. P3 objection. Pursuant thereto, a site inspection was conducted on 21/2/2025, during which the alternative route suggested by the petitioner was pointed out. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent issued a notice for a hearing on 19/3/2025 to the petitioner's brother. The hearing was conducted, and written objections along with a sketch of the alternative route were filed, which are produced as Exts. P9 and P10.