SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Ker) 16

High Court of Kerala
V. CHITAMBARESH, J.
G. Sunil Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others - Respondents
WP (C) No. 474 of 2015 (H)
Decided On: 09-01-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), A.R. Dileep, Manu Sebastian, Parvathy Nair, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sajeevkumar K. Gopal, SC, KSEB, S. Jamal, Sr. Govt. Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, only applies when the telegraph line/posts are placed on the individual's property, and individuals must seek relief through the civil court for property value diminishment or obstruction issues.

Headnote:

Telegraph Act - Property Rights - Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [Sections 10, 16, 17] - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empower the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts on immovable property, and the rights of individuals to seek compensation or removal of telegraph lines/posts. The court emphasized the requirement that the telegraph line/posts must be placed on the individual's property for compensation or removal to be applicable. The judgment also referenced previous case law to support its interpretation of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed that the value of his property was diminished due to the erection of a transformer and electric posts on poramboke land adjacent to the road. The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of an application for shifting the transformer and posts, as well as compensation from the Kerala State Electricity Board.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's application for shifting or compensation was not maintainable under the Indian Telegraph Act, as the telegraph line/posts were not placed on the petitioner's property. The court dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek relief through other legal forums.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim of property value diminishment due to the erection of transformer and electric posts, and the applicability of the Indian Telegraph Act for seeking compensation or removal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Indian Telegraph Act only applies when the telegraph line/posts are placed on the individual's property, and the petitioner's claims were not within the purview of the Act. The court emphasized that the petitioner's remedy lay in seeking relief through the civil court for mandatory injunction or damages.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the petitioner was advised to seek relief through the appropriate legal forum.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner contends that the value of his property has been materially diminished (blocking its ingress and egress as well) owing to the erection of a transformer and electric posts. It is however conceded that the transformer and the electric posts have been erected outside his property on the poramboke land on the side of the road. The first prayer in the writ petition is for an expeditious disposal of an application pending with the District Magistrate for shifting the transformer and the electric posts. The second prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officials to assess the damages and pay compensation.

2. The petitioner maintains that the transformer and the electric posts were erected on the poramboke land along side the road notwithstanding his objection evidenced by representations. The suit filed by the petitioner as O.S.No.324/2010 seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction against the erection was admittedly dismissed for default. The District Collector refused to intervene in the erection of the transformer and the electric posts despite the report of the village officer favourable to the petitioner. The petitioner did move the Lok Ayuktha which directed the Kerala State Electricity Board and its officials to take a decision on the request of the petitioner to shift the transformer and the electric posts. But the Assistant Executive Engineer turned down the request of the petitioner on the ground that such shifting would cause substantial drop in the voltage of electricity. It was under these circumstances did the petitioner move the District Magistrate by an application under Section 17(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 ['the Act' for short] seeking shifting and compensation.

3. I heard Mr.George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.Sajeev.K.Gopal, Standing Counsel on the behalf of the Kerala State Electricity Board.

4. The relevant provisions in the Act which have a bearing on the case in hand are as follows:-

“10. Power for telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts:- The telegraph authority may, from time to time, place and maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immovable property;

Provided that-

(a) x x x x

(b) x x x x

(c) except as hereinafter provided, the telegraph authority shall not exercise those powers in respect of any property vested in or under the control or management of any local authority, without the permission of that authority; and

(d) in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers.

16. Exercise of powers conferred by section 10, and disputes as to compensation, in case of property other than that of a local authority:-

(1) x x x x

(2) x x x x

(3) If any dispute arises concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under section 10, clause (d), it shall, on application for that purpose by either of the disputing parties to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him.

17. Removal or alteration of telegraph line or post, on property other than that of a local authority:-

(1) When, under the foregoing provisions of this Act, a telegraph line or post has been placed by the telegraph authority under, over, along, across, in or upon any property, not being property vested in or under the control or management of a local authority, and any person entitled to do so desires to deal with that property in such a manner as to render it necessary or convenient that the telegraph line or post should be removed to another part thereof or to a higher or lower level or







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top